beta
Text
1. The Defendants each share KRW 24,207,619 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 30% per annum from November 13, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff and the mother of the Defendants lent KRW 5,00,000 to D, respectively, and KRW 60,000,000 on July 30, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 2.5,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) for the total amount of KRW 65,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) between D and D, as of August 23, 2012, the Plaintiff’s repayment period of KRW 35,000,000 among them was set as the repayment period of KRW 35,00,000.
B. On May 6, 2012, E, the spouse of D, purchased the member-gu F apartment No. 802 (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant housing”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E on August 9, 2012.
C. On January 23, 2016, E died, and D did not become a heir due to Article 1004 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and the Defendants, a child of E, inherited E’s property as their share of 1/2.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the loan of this case was directly borrowed from the plaintiff Eul with Eul, and even if not, the loan of this case was concluded by D to purchase the house of this case and use it for his family's residence, and constitutes a juristic act related to daily home and thus, it constitutes a legal act related to daily home. Since the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the obligation to return the loan of this case to E with the spouse, the defendant asserts that E is the inheritor, and therefore, he is obligated to return the loan of this case to the plaintiff 1/2.
B. (1) Determination (1) As to whether E is a party to a monetary loan contract or not, as to whether the loan contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, health class No. 2 (cash storage certificate), and class No. 4 (Incompetence) are acknowledged to have been forged by the witness witness D’s testimony, it cannot be admitted as evidence, and otherwise, E cannot be admitted as evidence.