logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.14 2019가단514943
구상금
Text

1. Within the scope of property inherited from the network G to the Plaintiff, Defendant C’s 275,720,183 and 86.

Reasons

1. The facts as indicated in the separate sheet of claim do not clearly dispute the Defendants, and all of them are recognized since the Defendants received a judgment on the limited recognition of inheritance as to March 31, 2014 from the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2014-Ma111 on the grounds that the Defendants did not dispute the Plaintiff.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C succeeded to the property of 3/9 shares of the deceased as the spouse of the deceased, and Defendant D, E, and F succeeded to the property of 2/9 shares of the deceased from each deceased’s children, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased; Defendant D, E, and F as to KRW 275,720,183 of the remaining principal and interest inherited and the principal amount of KRW 86,281,915 of the total principal and interest of KRW 275,720,183 of the deceased; Defendant C, E, and F as to KRW 183,813,45 of the remaining principal and interest inherited, and KRW 75,521,276 of the remaining principal and interest of the claim from April 10, 2019 to August 15, 2018.

In this regard, the Plaintiff claimed 15% interest per annum against the Defendants from the day following the last delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment. However, the rate of damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was changed to 12% per annum from June 1, 2019 to 12% per annum, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the net G on damages for delay with 15% per annum, and thus, the Plaintiff’

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

arrow