beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 12,857,142, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively; and (b) against each said money, KRW 8,571,428, and each of the said money on November 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 21, 2011, the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) determined and lent KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to the Defendant as of January 22, 2012, around October 21, 201.
B. The plaintiffs are the inheritors of the deceased, and the plaintiffs A are the deceased's wife, and the plaintiffs B and C are the children of each deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 12,857,142 won, the plaintiff B, and C each of the above amounts of KRW 8,571,428 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 6, 2015 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiffs within the scope of their share of inheritance.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Deceased, the Defendant, and F agreed to change the debtor of the instant loan from the Defendant to F on December 10, 2012. Therefore, the debtor of the instant loan was changed to F due to the assumption of an obligation with immunity or the novation agreement. (ii) The F claiming repayment was the borrower who actually used the instant loan, and was paid money exceeding the principal and interest of the instant loan from June 23, 201 to September 17, 2013. As such, the instant loan claim was extinguished by repayment.
B. 1) Determination 1) We examine the determination of the assertion on the assumption of obligation or the assertion on the renewal of a contract with respect to the assumption of obligation with respect to exemption, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) We examine the determination of the assertion on repayment, and the following.