beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) each of the KRW 20,134,580 and KRW 6,579,420 from March 8, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 29, 199, the Jam-dong Credit Union loaned KRW 32,90,000 to the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”) on November 29, 199, at the rate of KRW 15.5% per annum, until November 29, 200, the loan period of KRW 32,90,00 from November 29, 199, until November 29, 200, the interest rate of KRW 13.5% per annum, and delay compensation rate of KRW 15.5% per annum.
B. On May 3, 2012, the bankruptcy trustee of the Jinyang-dong Credit Cooperative, who was declared bankrupt, transferred on May 3, 2012 the obligation of the above paragraph (a) to the Plaintiff and transferred
5. A notice of assignment of claims was given around 16.
C. On the other hand, the Deceased died on December 15, 201, and the Defendant A, B, F, G, and H inherited the deceased’s obligations.
From among the inheritors of the deceased, F, G, and H were accepted and confirmed at the family support of the Daegu District Court, and the defendant B was accepted and confirmed as a qualified acceptance report at the above court.
E. As of March 7, 2015, the deceased’s obligation remains the principal amount of KRW 32,897,149, overdue interest of KRW 67,775,783.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the agreement rate of 20,134,580 won and 6,579,420 won among the deceased’s obligations, within the scope of the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance. Defendant B, the inheritor of the deceased, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the agreement from March 8, 2015 to the date of full payment. However, Defendant B, on which the report on qualified acceptance
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and as long as the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim due to Defendant B's assertion of qualified acceptance, it is reasonable to have the plaintiff bear the part arising between the plaintiff and Defendant B. It is so decided as per Disposition.