beta
Text
1. The Defendants: 17,284,502 Won and 17.2 of each of them, within the scope of property inherited from the network E to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 30, 2016, the FF Union lent KRW 90 million to the network E, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to guarantee the net E’s loan obligation to the FF Association.
B. The Plaintiff agreed that, at the time of expressing the intent of guarantee as above, the Plaintiff may claim reimbursement from the network E when the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation, and that the interest rate applied to the money to be paid by the network E may be determined by the Plaintiff within the limit of 20% per annum.
C. On January 13, 2019, the deceased on January 13, 2019, there was Defendant B and Defendant C, a parent of the deceased E. The Defendants filed a request for a qualified acceptance trial with the Daejeon Family Court for the inheritance of the deceased E’s property under the Red Family Court Support 2019Mo136, and was adjudicated on May 28, 2019.
On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received reimbursement demand from the FF Association for the amount borrowed by the network E, and subrogated to the FF Association for KRW 34,569,05,05 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 34,557,64, and damages KRW 11,361.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, according to the effect of qualified acceptance, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages determined by the Plaintiff, from March 13, 2019 to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment, with respect to each of the 17,284,502 won (i.e., KRW 34,569,05 won x KRW 1/2, and less than KRW 1,278,822 (i.e., KRW 34,57,644 x 1/2) and each of the principal among them (i.e., KRW 34,57,644 x 1/2).
3. If so, the plaintiff's each of the claims against the defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.