beta
Text
1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the net G to the Plaintiff
A. Defendant A: (a) KRW 31,442,617 and KRW 14,311.
Reasons
1. Each fact in the form of a claim after the change in the separate sheet of determination as to the cause of the claim does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including a serial number). Thus, barring any special circumstance, defendant A is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay for KRW 31,442,61,617 and KRW 14,31,083 among them, and damages for delay for delay for KRW B, C, D, E, and F, KRW 20,961,74 and KRW 9,540,72 of them, respectively.
2. After the Defendants died from the network G for determining the Defendants’ defense, the Defendants filed a report on the inheritance limited recognition with the Gwangju District Court 2011-Ma119 on June 7, 201, and the fact that the said report was accepted on June 14, 2011 is either a dispute between the parties or the Plaintiff, so the Defendants are liable to pay the said money within the scope of the property inherited from the network G.
3. According to the conclusion, Defendant A, within the scope of property inherited from G G to the Plaintiff, has an obligation to dispute over KRW 31,442,617 and KRW 14,311,083 from March 26, 2018 to August 21, 2018, the agreed rate of 12% per annum, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment, with respect to KRW 20,961,74 and KRW 9,540,72 from the following day to March 26, 2018, each of which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the above performance obligation of the Defendants from March 26, 2018 to the day of full payment, with respect to each of the agreed interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground.