beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, each of which is KRW 18,961,061 and its 18,899 among them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff implemented a comprehensive passbook loan with the intention of applying the changed interest rate (10.57% per annum) to the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) on May 20, 2016, applying the additional interest rate of 3.05% per annum (4.57% per annum per annum) to the interest rate (4.57% per annum) and the interest rate per annum depending on the number of delayed days, while applying the changed interest rate at the time of changing the interest rate (10.57%).
B. The Plaintiff’s above loans against the Deceased amounting to KRW 37,79,410 as of November 18, 2016, plus KRW 37,922,122,123 as of November 18, 2016.
C. On August 5, 2016, the Deceased died, and the Deceased’s inheritor has the Defendants, who are parents (the shares of inheritance 1/2).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, the inheritor of the Deceased, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 10.57% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 37,799,705 won (=37,79,410 won x 1/2) and the principal of the loan, depending on their respective shares in inheritance, to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances (i.e., KRW 37,92,123 won x 1/2 shares).
B. On this issue, the Defendants asserted that they are obliged to pay the Plaintiff a loan to the Plaintiff only within the limit of the inherited active property, and according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 1, the Defendants were subject to the Cheongju District Court Decision 2016 Madan1158, Dec. 9, 2016. The Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the above paragraph (a) only within the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased. Thus, the aforementioned defense is justified.
3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff raised objection against the Defendants.