logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2018가단115020
상속채무금
Text

1. The defendant shall not exceed 45,340,093 won and 45,220 among them within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased E.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E on May 30, 2016, as follows:

Lease Period: acquisition cost for 60 months from the date of issuance of the certificate of receipt of the article: 169,053,170 won: 25% penalty per annum: 110% of the unpaid principal

B. E’s death and inheritance relationship (i.e., E died on January 10, 2018, and there were F and G, the Defendant and its children, the inheritor.

on July 23, 2018, the Defendant, F, and G received a qualified acceptance of inheritance against the deceased, and F and G received a judgment of acceptance of the report (Seoul Family Court 2018 Mo2531) that renounced inheritance against the deceased.

C. On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement and received the return of the said automobile.

The amount of the Plaintiff’s claim following the termination of the contract is KRW 45,340,093 [132,318,925, lease fees of KRW 5,608,400 ( principal KRW 4,103,835, interest of KRW 1,504,565), overdue interest of KRW 434,740,740 for delay - KRW 119,877 for delay damages of KRW 102,06,00].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, who made a qualified acceptance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 20, 2018 to the date of complete payment under the agreement as to KRW 45,340,093 and its KRW 45,220,216 ( KRW 45,340,093 - damages for delay 119,877), which is the day following the termination of the lease agreement, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow