beta
Text
1. To the extent of the property inherited from the network E, the Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B:21,428,572;
B. Defendant C and D are the same.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to Nonparty E on December 5, 2016 without the agreement on the interest and the due date for reimbursement. The Plaintiff died on November 16, 2017 and transferred his/her inherited property to Defendant B C/7, his/her spouse, Defendant C/D’s children, and Defendant C/D inherited his/her inherited property with their respective shares of 2/7, respectively, and the fact that the Deceased or Defendants failed to repay the above loans.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 14,285,714 won (=50,000,000 won x 3/7,000 won below) for the Plaintiff, and 21,428,572 won (i.e., 50,000 won x 2/7,000 won below) for each of them after the lease date, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 16, 2016 to the date the judgment of this case is rendered, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants are liable for the repayment of the said money only within the scope of inherited property, inasmuch as the qualified acceptance report on the deceased was accepted.
According to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the defendants filed a report with the Busan Family Court on the inheritance limited approval of the deceased who was the deceased, and the above court accepted the above report on February 19, 2018 (2018 Madan509).
Therefore, the Defendants’ liability against the Plaintiff is limited to the property inherited by the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is with merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.