beta
Text
1. On July 24, 2018, the Defendant’s each of the 30,330,815 won and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On October 2, 2017, B died on October 2, 2017, Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Appointor (hereinafter the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointor (hereinafter the “Plaintiffs”) and C were employed as their children.
B. B had a deposit claim of KRW 90,992,446 against the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. As the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion B died on October 2, 2017 and the plaintiffs and C, who are children of B, inherited the property of B, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the plaintiffs 30,330,815 won (=92,446 won x 1/3) and delay damages.
B. According to Article 1005 of the Civil Act, an inheritor succeeds to the comprehensive rights and obligations on the property of the inheritee from the time of commencement of the inheritance. In a case where the contents of performance, such as monetary claims, are jointly inherited, the obligee shall be divided into and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of commencement of the inheritance
(See Supreme Court Order 2014SS122 Decided May 4, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809 Decided June 24, 1997, etc.). The facts as seen earlier are that B had deposit claims of KRW 90,992,446 against the Defendant, and that B succeeded to the comprehensive rights and obligations on the property of KRW 90,992,446 against the Defendant. The deposit claims of KRW 30,330,815 (=90,92,446 x 1/3) and each of the above amounts were attributed to B and C as monetary claims of KRW 30,930,815 (i.e., 90,96 x 1/3). The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% from July 24, 2018 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.