beta
Text
1. Within the scope of property inherited from the deceased C (Death on December 22, 2014) to the Plaintiff:
A. The Selection D shall be 19,285.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on June 23, 201, regarding No. 1518 of the Seo-gu Daejeon F building, with a security deposit of KRW 45 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On December 22, 2014, C died on December 22, 2014.
B. On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff notified C’s husband D, C’s child E and B of the termination of the instant lease agreement.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendants were adjudicated on March 23, 2015 with the Daejeon Family Court No. 2015-Ma376, which was inherited by inheritance.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the instant lease contract was terminated, the Defendants are obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff according to their respective shares of inheritance.
Therefore, within the scope of the property inherited from the network C, Defendant D is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,285,714 (=45,000 x less than KRW 3/7,00 x less than KRW 3/7,00; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant E and B are 12,857,142 (i.e., KRW 45,000 x 2/7) and each of the above money (i.e., from the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint to the Defendants as requested by the Plaintiff. Defendant D and B are from April 14, 2015 to June 11, 2015 (the date of pleading, which is the date of pleading, from June 10, 2015) to the day after each of the above amounts is calculated at the rate of 20% per annum of the Civil Act to July 1, 2015, respectively.
The Plaintiff is seeking to jointly and severally pay KRW 45 million to the Defendants, but the return of security deposit is a divisible debt, which is divided according to the statutory shares of inheritance at the time of the commencement of inheritance and belongs to the heir. Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.