beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally with Nonparty I and D, and the scope of the property inherited from each networkJ.
Reasons
1. In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including additional numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased J et al. on September 5, 2008 against the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap2905, and the judgment was rendered on September 5, 2008 that "the deceased J shall pay the plaintiff 725,237,745 won jointly and severally with I, K, D, and 243,181,643 won with interest of 18% per annum from February 20, 208 to the day of full payment, and that the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time, the deceased J et al. died on October 4, 2014, and the defendants (excluding the defendants) who are their successors filed the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of the qualified acceptance after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on March 3, 2015 (the judgment of this case).
2. If so, the Defendants, the heir of the deceased J, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 1,051,531,760 (=the remaining principal of KRW 179,761,265, Aug. 6, 2018) as damages for delay until August 6, 2018.
However, according to the plaintiff's shares of inheritance, the plaintiff claimed 3/17 of the principal and interest against the defendant who is the wife of the deceased J, and 2/17 of the amount (including the defendant H who was not subject to the limited approval trial) applied to the remaining defendants (including the defendant H who was not subject to the limited approval trial).
Within the scope of property inherited from the deceased J, Defendant A is obligated to pay 185,564,428 won and 31,722,576 won among them, and the remaining Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum, which is the rate of 18% per annum, from August 7, 2018 to the date of full payment.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.