beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the net C:
(a) Appointors D shall be 3,333,334 won and the same;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C around the end of 2008.
B. The Plaintiff urged C to repay the above loan, but completed the provisional attachment decision period registration on the real estate owned by C, which did not repay the loan.
C. On November 27, 2009, C died (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), D (C) who is the co-inheritors of the deceased, Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointor F, E (children, children, and inheritance shares) reported qualified acceptance on April 10, 2017 by the Daejeon Family Court’s 2017-Ma293, and reported qualified acceptance.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (the evidence No. 1 of the witness G is recognized as being genuine by the purport of the whole testimony and pleading of the witness G), Eul 1 evidence, witness G, the purport of the whole argument
2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, who lent KRW 100 million to the network C, is obligated to pay damages for delay for the amount of KRW 22,222,222, respectively to the Defendant, who leased KRW 100 million to the network C, within the scope of the property inherited from the network C, D, who is the Claimant (i.e., KRW 33,334 won x KRW 3/9,000 x below KRW 3/9,000), the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party, F, and E, respectively, and each of the above money.
The delay damages to be paid by the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Defendants are the amount calculated from November 30, 2017, the following day after the duplicate of the payment order in this case was served, from December 1, 2017, and from December 2, 2017, the following day after the duplicate of the payment order in this case was served, and F is the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 2, 2017 to the day after the duplicate of the payment order in this case was served.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.