beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, within the scope of the property inherited to the network D, Defendant A shall be KRW 91,745,926 and KRW 4,304,787 among them.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1.
On January 25, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned the amount of KRW 450 million to D on June 24, 2008 due date, 11% agreed upon, and interest for arrears at 19%.
B. The network D paid only a part of the interest and did not pay the principal and interest. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff received 441,515,220 won in the E-Voluntary Auction procedure in Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, and appropriated part of the credit and remains as of November 28, 2012, the principal amount remaining as of November 28, 2012 is KRW 10,04,507.
C. D died on December 23, 2012. At the time, the heir was the Defendant B and C, who was the wife Defendant A and his/her child, but the Defendants reported the inheritance-limited approval to the Suwon District Court 2013-Ma119, and was adjudicated on March 25, 2013 from the said court.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, the co-inheritors of the network D, are obligated to pay their respective legal shares in inheritance (Defendant A3/7, Defendant B, and each of the two/7) within the scope of the property inherited to the network D.
However, the Plaintiff sought payment of the interest claim accrued from August 25, 2009. Since the Defendant applied the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years in the case of the interest claim, the Defendant asserted that the period of extinctive prescription of the interest claim accrued before May 16, 201 has expired. Accordingly, the Plaintiff resisted that the period of prescription has ceased from the time when the Defendant applied for provisional seizure of real estate (former District Court 2010Kadan4523) on September 29, 201 with the claim for the instant loan claim as of September 29, 2010.
According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 8 through 13, it is recognized that the plaintiff's interest claim against the deceased D was suspended from the date of application for provisional seizure of the above real estate and the statute of limitations on the interest claim against the loan of this case (the loan date January 25, 2008) has been interrupted. Thus, the defendant A, as to the plaintiff, was 91,745.