beta
Text
1. The defendant, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, 67. 67. 67.
Reasons
In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the determination of the cause of the claim, Gap 1-5 and Eul 1's respective entries and the purport of the whole pleadings, the network D loaned 270 million won to the network C on December 24, 2009, interest rate of 5% per annum, 5% per annum, and 5% per annum, and without due date, the network D died on May 25, 2019, and the bereaved family member died on May 3, 2019. The network C died on May 3, 2014, and the deceased's family member died on May 3, 2014. The deceased's family member was E and F, the wife and children, but E and F reported the waiver of the deceased's property inheritance on August 7, 2014.
Judgment
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the heir of the deceased C, is obligated to pay each of the above loans of KRW 67,500,000 (=270,000 x 1/4), interest and delay damages to the Plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased D, each of whom is 67,50,000 under statutory inheritance (1/4).
(A) The Defendant’s defense against the Defendant is proved to have made a qualified acceptance as to the deceased’s inheritance, and the Defendant reported to the effect that the qualified acceptance as to the deceased’s inheritance was made on August 7, 2014, and on August 1, 2014, according to the reasoning of the judgment on the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant reported to the effect that the qualified acceptance as to the deceased’s inheritance was made by the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2014Mo343, August 7, 2014, and the judgment accepting the above qualified acceptance as to the above qualified acceptance was accepted. Therefore, the defense is justified.
Therefore, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, the Defendant’s defense as to the existence and scope of the obligation is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 1, 2014 to February 6, 2020, as the Plaintiffs seek against each of the Plaintiffs, as to the existence and scope of the obligation.