beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 109,732,640 and its amount from August 1, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. There is no clear dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A as to each of the grounds for the change in the attached Form of the claim against Defendant A.
However, Defendant A representative director H asserts to the effect that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request, since he was registered as the representative director in the above company due to fraud.
However, the plaintiff's claim of this case is seeking the claim against the defendant corporation A, and it is not seeking the above claim against the H individual. Thus, the above claim is without merit.
2. There is no clear dispute between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants on each of the grounds of the changes in the attached list of claims against Defendant C, D, E, and F.
According to the above facts, the above Defendants, as the deceased’s inheritors, are obligated to perform the deceased’s obligations to the Plaintiff according to their shares of inheritance.
On the other hand, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they were subject to a qualified acceptance trial on the deceased’s inheritance.
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 recognized 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. Provided, That in order to restrict the executory power, the court must clearly state the purport that the obligation can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance, in order to limit the executory power.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003, etc.). The above legal principle and the Plaintiff sought performance of the inheritance obligation according to the inherited portion within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased against the said Defendants.