logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.06.18 2018가단22653
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is 25,00,000 won and 25% per annum from December 1, 1998 to August 27, 2008.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D with the Busan District Court 2008Kadan84775, and on November 19, 2008, the plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that "D shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and 25% per annum from December 1, 1998 to August 27, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on December 13, 2008, and D died on November 18, 2008, and jointly succeeded to D with the defendants, but E was adjudicated to accept a report to waive the inheritance of D's property on January 16, 2009.

(B) Defendant C was adjudicated on April 9, 2019 on April 1, 2019 by the Busan Family Court 2008 D's 4480) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Hu846, Apr. 9, 2019)

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendants are obligated to pay the above judgment amounted to KRW 25 million divided in proportion to the defendants' shares in inheritance, and each of the above amounts, to be 25% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay fixed from December 1, 1998 to August 27, 2008, 20% per annum, the interest rate for delay fixed from August 28, 2008 to October 31, 2018, and the interest rate for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is below the interest rate for delay fixed from August 28, 2008 to October 31, 2018. The defendants C are obligated to pay the above judgment amount to the plaintiff within the scope of property inherited from the deceased D, and the plaintiff is also obligated to pay it within the scope of property before the lapse of 10 years from the date of the above final judgment to suspend the prescription of claims based on the above final judgment. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is clearly filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition, but it occurs between the plaintiff and the defendant C.

arrow