beta
Text
1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, Defendant A shall be limited to KRW 21,399,447 and among them 20,571.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 48 million to the network D (hereinafter “the network”) from April 9, 2012 to April 9, 2016 during the lending period, and the interest rate shall be a fixed interest rate, but shall be 3.5% at the MOR standard interest rate.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
As of August 12, 2015, the Deceased lost his/her interest on May 12, 2015 due to his/her failure to pay the loans and interest at once. As of August 12, 2015, the principal and interest of the loans amounting to KRW 49,932,04 (including overdue interest at KRW 1,932,044, including overdue interest at KRW 48,000).
The Deceased died on April 30, 2015, and the Defendant B and C, the spouse of the Defendant A and C, inherited the deceased’s property. On May 18, 2015, the said Defendants filed a petition for adjudication of limited acceptance inherited by the District Court Decision 2015Ra914 on July 22, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 21,399,447 won (=49,932,04 won x 3/7; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 20,571,428 won among them according to their respective inheritance shares within the limit of inherited property from the deceased, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 14,26,298 won (=49,932,04 won x 2/7) and 13,714,285 won among them from August 12, 2015 to October 17, 2015, each of the following day of the instant claim and the application for change of cause, with 12.8% interest rate per annum from the agreement rate to October 17, 2015; and 15% interest rate per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are recognized, but it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 99 to the burden of litigation costs.