beta
Text
1. The Defendants pay KRW 5,850,000 to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the networkF.
2...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 16, 2008, G entered into a loan contract of KRW 27,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and then renewed the contract on April 16, 2008. Upon the renewal of the contract, G entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and G to guarantee the above loan obligations to the Plaintiff as KRW 35,100,000.
B. The obligation under the loan agreement described in the above paragraph (a) against the Plaintiff of G is the principal amounting to KRW 21,291,299 as of June 30, 2016, and interest amounting to KRW 24,51,919.
C. The F died on November 20, 2010, and the spouse G and children H of the deceased F’s spouse G and the deceased were tried on February 15, 201 to waive inheritance of the deceased F’s property under this Court Order 2010Ra1008.
The network I and the network J, the parent of the network F, have already died before the death of the network F, and there are siblings of the network F and the Defendants and the network K (Death on July 12, 2016).
E. On May 23, 2012, Defendant B was rendered an adjudication on the inheritance approval of each network F’s property under this Court’s 201-Ma751, Defendant A, C, D, and E, April 27, 2017, by this Court’s 2016-Ma1005.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim sought performance of the Defendant’s collateral obligation, which was inherited from the networkF to the Defendant, and therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants were 5,850,00 won [35,10,000 won x 1/6 (the Plaintiff’s respective shares of inheritance of the Defendants x 1/55], respectively, to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the networkF. However, at the time of the death of the networkF, there was a net K as the heir in addition to five, as the Defendants were the heir at the time of the death of the networkF, each share of inheritance by the Defendants is 1/
i)be liable for payment;
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.