beta
Text
1. Within the scope of property inherited from the deceased B, the defendant shall be KRW 26,819,425 and KRW 24,180,656 among them.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4.
(1) The facts stated in this part of the Plaintiff’s claim against B are as shown in the grounds for the application.
(However, Defendant B and Defendant B were dead on August 26, 2016, and the Defendant, the mother of B, solely inherited the network B.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of KRW 26,819,425 and KRW 24,180,656, among them, from December 8, 2016 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that since the qualified acceptance is granted, the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's request.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence No. 1, the facts that the deceased B died, and the defendant can be found to have accepted a report on the inheritance limited approval as of May 1, 2017 by filing a report on the inheritance limited approval as of Jung-gu District Court 2016 Ma6313, Ji Government District Court 2016-Ma6313, and the defendant's liability is limited to the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B. Thus, the defendant's assertion is with merit within the scope of the above recognition,
C. Within the scope of property inherited from the net B, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 27.9% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate of 27.9%, from December 8, 2016 to the date of complete payment, with respect to KRW 26,819,425 and KRW 24,180,656 among them.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.