beta
Text
1. To the extent of the property inherited from the network B, the Appointor C, D, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointor E.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the deceased B (hereinafter referred to as the “the Deceased”) with a credit guarantee agreement whereby, around 2005, the deceased would repay the loans on behalf of the deceased in the event that the deceased did not repay the loans, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement and issued a credit guarantee agreement.
B. In addition, at the time of the conclusion of the aforementioned credit guarantee agreement, the Deceased paid all ancillary obligations, such as damages for delay, penalty, guarantee fee, administrative fine pursuant to the agreed interest rate, and legal procedure costs incurred by the Plaintiff for the performance or preservation of credit guarantee obligations.
C. On November 1, 2005 and May 4, 2007, the Deceased borrowed KRW 69,000,000 in total from the borrower as security.
However, the Deceased lost the interest on the borrower’s loan obligation due to the default, and the Plaintiff, at the request of the borrower, by subrogated for the borrower’s loan obligation, acquired the Deceased’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 158,727,849 as of May 10, 2018, and the Deceased was liable for the delayed interest rate of KRW 12% for the said money and KRW 68,304,783 from May 10, 2018 to the date of full payment.
E. On January 26, 2009, the deceased died on January 26, 2009, Nonparty G, the first heir, and H renounced the inheritance, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) who was the sponsor of the deceased, C, the sponsor D, the sponsor E, the sponsor F reported the qualified acceptance of the deceased’s inherited property, and the report was accepted by the Daegu Family Court.
(F) Daegu Family Court 2018 Doz. 2241
F. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s designated party and the aforementioned designated parties inherited the deceased’s property by 1/5 shares, respectively.
Therefore, the Plaintiff claimed the claim against the Defendant’s designated party and the aforementioned designated party.