logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.02.20 2019가단337
구상금
Text

1. The Defendants are either KRW 2,712,785 and the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the network G.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 1997, the deceased G (the deceased on February 20, 200; hereinafter “the deceased”) borrowed KRW 18 million from the H association, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the deceased’s obligation (hereinafter “the obligation of the instant loan”).

B. The Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 16,276,710, totaling the principal and interest from December 31, 2009 to June 23, 2011, as the deceased did not repay the above loans.

C. The Defendants inherited shares in 1/6 of the deceased’s heir, and Defendant B inherited the shares in June 20, 2019, and the remainder of the Defendants were subject to each qualified acceptance judgment on April 10, 2002.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 2,712,785 won (i.e., KRW 16,276,710 x 1/6) as compensation for the instant loans within the scope of property inherited from the Deceased, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the instant loan has expired at the time of the Plaintiff’s subrogation.

On December 6, 2001, prior to the completion of the extinctive prescription of the instant loan, HA made on December 10, 2001 a decision of provisional seizure of real estate (hereinafter “decision of provisional seizure of this case”) on December 10, 201 by the Gwangju District Court 2001Kadan12678, where the deceased’s heir, including the Defendants, is the debtor, and the provisional seizure of real estate (hereinafter “decision of provisional seizure of this case”) was completed on December 10, 201.

According to this, the debt of this case was suspended by the execution of the provisional attachment decision of this case, and such interruption of prescription remains effective.

arrow