(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.30 2014가단21117

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.30 2014가단21117

구상금

Text

1. The defendant shall not exceed KRW 20,373,920 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B, and KRW 20,268,970 among them.

Reasons

1. As to the grounds for the claim, it can be acknowledged that the facts in the changed grounds for the claim are stated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 4, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant shall perform the obligation to pay compensation as stated in the Disposition No. 1.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that the defendant was tried to approve the inheritance limit of the deceased B, and since the small property of the above deceased exceeds the active property, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is without merit in its entirety.

On the other hand, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of liability, so long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized as the existence of an inherited obligation even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of all the inherited obligation even if the inherited property does not exist or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation. However, since the obligation of an inheritor is of a nature not to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of an inheritor, the court shall specify the purport that it can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's claim has already restricted its executive force to "within the scope of property inherited from the deceased B" as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1. Thus, the above defendant's claim is without merit without any further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.02.04 2014가단66969

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.24 2014가단174244

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.29 2013가단5185495

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단5219088

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.19 2014가단5345126