beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 810 million to B on January 6, 2014.
B. B purchased the price of KRW 1.43 billion from the Defendant on June 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at KRW 1.43 billion from Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and only paid KRW 130 million out of the down payment of KRW 140 million, and did not pay the Defendant the remainder of the down payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 500 million up to September 3, 2014, which is the intermediate payment payment date.
C. B: (a) through D that arranged the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not pay the intermediate payment payment date by September 15, 2014; (b) died on September 30, 2014; (c) E, F, parents of the instant property jointly inherited; and (c) E, F, on January 7, 2015, received a decision to accept a report on the qualified acceptance of inheritance (Seoul Family Court 2014Mo10553).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 7, Gap evidence 2-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 7, witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant’s determination on the defense before the draft of this case argues that the existence of the Plaintiff’s credit against B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is unclear, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the deceased’s credit against the deceased is in a state of absence of self-sufficiency. Thus, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for preservation of the Plaintiff’s credit against the deceased was a loan claim against the deceased, and the inheritor E and F are liable for the inherited debt only within the scope of inherited property by qualified acceptance, the need to preserve the deceased’s non-sufficient ability, etc. should be determined by examining only the inherited property and the inherited debt.
However, the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 810 million to the Deceased on January 6, 2014 is as stated in the underlying facts. The above evidence and the statements in the evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and No. 3, and this Court's Bank, Han Bank, Han Bank, Handi Exchange Bank, Handi Exchange Bank, Korea CTR Bank, Industrial Bank of Korea, and Industrial Bank of Korea.