(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.08.19 2016가단10527

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.08.19 2016가단10527

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff was issued with a “written rejection” to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 150 million from the net F (hereinafter “the network”).

B. The Deceased died on December 13, 2015, and there was Defendant C, D, and E, the deceased’s heir, who is the deceased’s spouse, as Defendant B, D, and E.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff, from around 2006, lent a total of KRW 150 million to the deceased who performed a kimchi business on several occasions. However, the deceased agreed to pay the money until July 26, 201, but failed to pay the money, and if it was made by receiving the instant payment note from the deceased, the Defendants, the inheritor, should be held liable.

In this regard, the Defendants asserted that since around 1996, they did not know whether there was a debt to the Plaintiff of the deceased, and that they could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they lawfully renounced inheritance.

B. In light of the reasoning of the judgment and evidence No. 1, even if it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation exists with respect to the deceased’s claim, and even if such obligation exists, according to the entire purport of the statement and pleading No. 1, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, filed a report to waive the deceased’s inheritance on December 28, 2015, and the above report was accepted by Seoul Family Court Decision 2015Ra12389 on March 10, 2016. According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased’s obligation against the Plaintiff is not inherited by the Defendants’ waiver of inheritance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the Defendants inherited the deceased’s obligation is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is groundless, and all of them are without merit.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.10.13 2016가단1180

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.08.26 2015가단2612

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.27 2014나60490

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.05.23 2015가단9062

-서울북부지방법원 2016.08.26 2015가단140681