logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.03 2014가단141510
양수금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 31,518,586 and KRW 20,523,410 among them:

B. Nonparty D

Reasons

1. The Liquidation Bank Corporation filed a lawsuit against the Defendant A and D seeking payment of the amount of money under the control of the Gwangju District Court 2003Kadan31729. In the lawsuit above, “Defendant A and D shall jointly and severally pay the amount of 31,518,586 won to the Reorganization Bank Corporation and 20,523,410 won among them, from December 15, 1998 to February 17, 1999; 25% per annum from February 18, 199 to June 13, 199; and 24% per annum from June 14, 199 to November 4, 201; and from the next day to June 14, 2001 to June 14, 207, the judgment became final and conclusive based on the annual ratio of 19%.”

B. Solomon Mutual Savings Bank acquired the claims based on the above judgment in sequence from the Reorganization Financial Corporation, Co., Ltd. and Yangyang Mutual Savings Bank.

Solomon Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap46, and the plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

C. On October 15, 2009, D succeeded to the deceased’s property on the part of Defendant A, E, F, G, H, and I. The above inheritors renounced their inheritance (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2009Hu1733 Decided Family Branch). Defendant B, and C, who are children E, filed a qualified acceptance report on the deceased’s inherited property, and the report was accepted.

(2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 2, 2014, before the extinctive prescription has expired for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above judgment, on July 2, 2014. The instant lawsuit has interest in the lawsuit.

Therefore, Defendant A, Defendant B, and C are obligated to pay the money indicated in the order within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, which is equivalent to the inherited share among the net D’s obligations. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants of this case is justified.

arrow