logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.09.14 2017가단28587
상속채무금
Text

1. The Defendants shall pay 60,412,638 won to the Plaintiff each and 15% per annum from May 26, 2010 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

A. In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the reasons for the claim are recognized.

B. In a case where the performance is jointly inherited with a debt, such as a divisible and pecuniary obligation, this is naturally divided and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809, Jun. 24, 1997).

Therefore, the Defendants, co-inheritors of the network D, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 60,412,638 won (120,825,276 won X inheritance shares 1/2) and 15% interest per annum from May 26, 2010 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendants asserted that, while the Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Na11881 decided September 19, 2007, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on December 7, 2017 when 10 years elapsed from the date the lawsuit of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the said final and conclusive judgment has already expired.

B. On the other hand, Article 168 of the Civil Act provides for provisional seizure as a cause of interrupting prescription because an obligee may be deemed to have exercised his/her right by provisional seizure. As such, while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure continues to exist, the exercise of the right by the obligee of provisional seizure shall be deemed to continue while the preservation by provisional seizure remains effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da32781, Jul. 27, 2006).

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, for the purpose of preserving the claims of this case based on the above final judgment, the plaintiff completed provisional attachment execution on March 18, 2008 with regard to the land located in Chungcheongnam-gun, E, F, and G, H, I, J, and K owned by the deceased D as the Daejeon District Court 208Kadan1821 on March 14, 2008, and completed provisional attachment execution on March 18, 2008, and the defendant Eul located in E, F, G, and K respectively.

arrow