beta
Text
1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The network D (hereinafter “the network”) obtained a credit card from the Japanese bank and delayed payment of the credit card price (hereinafter “the instant card price”). The credit card price claim was transferred in sequence from the Japanese bank to the reorganization financing corporation, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the Plaintiff.
B. The principal and interest of the instant credit card payment claim is the sum of KRW 1,492,471 as of May 24, 2013, 5,592,292, and KRW 4,106,821 as of May 24, 2013.
C. On the other hand, the deceased died on September 2, 2004, and the co-defendant C and the Defendants, the wife, jointly inherited.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the co-defendant C of the first instance trial is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 28, 2014 to the date of complete payment, on which the duplicate of the claim and the cause of the change were served to the Defendants, with respect to KRW 1,599,790 and KRW 639,630, respectively, and KRW 426,420, respectively.
B. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not inherit the deceased’s obligation since they renounced inheritance to the deceased, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in No. 1, the Defendants filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance on October 4, 2004 with the Suwon District Court 2004Mo526 decided Oct. 8, 2004, and received a judgment to accept it on October 8, 2004. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants premised on the premise that the Defendants are the deceased’s inheritor is therefore groundless.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.