beta
Text
1. (a) Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,171,343, and 15,697,273 as well as each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The fact of recognition (1) The network F (hereinafter “the network”) was supplied by the Plaintiff Company an amount equivalent to KRW 78,514,031, and KRW 47,091,819, and KRW 47,091,819, by the Plaintiff Company, for goods used in the rashing and the removal pipes of parts to be supplied to the fishery Heavy Industries by May 2015.
(2) The Deceased died on June 5, 2015, and the inherited property was jointly inherited by Defendant B, Defendant C, D, and E, the wife of the Deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly inherited the Defendant’s goods payment obligation against the Plaintiffs. Thus, barring any other special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 26,171,343 (= KRW 78,514,031 x 3/9), Defendant C, D, and E to the Plaintiff Company KRW 15,697,273 (== KRW 47,091,819 x 3/9), Defendant C, D, and E (= KRW 78,47,562) to the Plaintiff, respectively (= KRW 78,514,031 x 2/9) to the Plaintiff Company, and to pay damages for delay (= KRW 47,091,819 x 2/9) to the Plaintiff Company.
2. Judgment on the defendants' defenses of limited acceptance of inheritance
A. According to the judgment on Defendant B’s defense (1) No. 1, it is recognized that Defendant B filed a report on limited inheritance approval with the Suwon District Court 2015Ra2032 on August 24, 2015 and received the said report from the said court on October 7, 2015.
However, on the other hand, the fact that Defendant B sold part of the machinery belonging to the deceased’s inherited property to Signals Co., Ltd. on or around June 2015 is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 7. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is deemed to have granted simple approval pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act (the mere approval is deemed to have been granted when the inheritor disposed of the inherited property). Therefore, Defendant B’s defense is justified.