beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B and D, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, KRW 28,33,00 each, and Defendant C, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E. 85.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, Eul borrowed 120,000 won from the plaintiff on March 27, 2013 as the total amount of March 18, 2013 and March 30. The above amount was promised to be repaid within December 2016. The defendant C signed the above cash custody certificate as the guarantor, the plaintiff received 35,00,000 won in total from Aug. 2013 to Jan. 2018; Eul died on Feb. 21, 2018; and Eul shared inheritance by the defendants on March 18, 2013; and defendant B and the Incheon Family Court approved the inheritance as the Incheon Family Court.
According to the above facts, Defendant B, and D, the co-inheritors of E, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 31, 2018 to the day of full payment, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E (the principal amount of 85,00,000,000 won claimed by the Plaintiff x 1/3,000 won x the amount of 85,000,000 won for each of them, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 31, 2018, the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants’ assertion E paid more than KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff from June 2009 to February 2013, 2013, E and Defendant C prepared a cash custody certificate by the Plaintiff’s strong pressure, and repaid more than KRW 35,00,000 after the cash custody certificate was prepared, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.
B. As seen earlier, as of March 27, 2013, E’s obligation to the Plaintiff as of March 27, 2013 is recognized as KRW 120,00,000, and the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that E and Defendant C prepared a cash storage certificate by the Plaintiff’s strong pressure, and it is otherwise recognized.