beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 948,385,953 to the Plaintiff, but Defendant C succeeds to the network D.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the attached Form;
(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;
2. The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the instant claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C Co., Ltd. to pay KRW 948,385,953 to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the networkD.
On the other hand, Defendant C asserts that since the qualified acceptance was decided by the qualified acceptance, it is not responsible for the repayment of the above obligation to the Plaintiff.
However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of liability, so long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is deemed to exist even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. However, since the obligation has a nature in which compulsory execution is not possible for the inherent property of the inheritor, it should be clearly stated in the text of the judgment of performance that can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in order to restrict executory power.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Accordingly, insofar as the Plaintiff seeks the instant claim against the said Defendant within the scope of the property already inherited from the network D, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.