A. Defendant B: 46,66,666 won, and E: 31,111.

On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a person operating a cafeteria at the construction site of an apartment, established a cafeteria at the construction site of the Daejeon Metropolitan City by June 30, 2015 between the network F (hereinafter referred to as “the network”), and between the Plaintiff on May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Plaintiff on which the Plaintiff would open a cafeteria at the construction site of the Daejeon Metropolitan City by June 30, 2015, and the Plaintiff would pay to the Deceased KRW 30 million as the service cost. ② On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff opened a cafeteria at the construction site of the Yongsan-si, Seoul Metropolitan City by June 30, 2015, and the Plaintiff would pay the Deceased KRW 110 million to the Plaintiff with the service cost. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 140 million in total.

The deceased could not open a cafeteria under the above service contract by operating the cafeteria directly by a third party, or by opening a cafeteria by a third party.

On January 3, 2017, the Deceased jointly succeeded to the shares of Defendant B 3/9, Defendant C, D, and E, respectively, 2/9.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each serial number in the case of a branch number), and the facts of the above recognition as to the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's claim as to the plaintiff's claim as to defendant Eul and Eul succeeded to the plaintiff's service payment of KRW 140 million, barring special circumstances, the defendant Eul and Eul are liable to pay to the plaintiff each amount equivalent to the plaintiff's inheritance share of KRW 140 million among the service obligations of the plaintiff's 140 million and its delay damages.

Defendant B and E’s defense of qualified acceptance and judgment on this issue were rendered on the request for a qualified acceptance judgment after the death of the deceased, and thus, the said Defendants asserted that they are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to the inheritance share out of the service obligations of the deceased within the scope of inherited property from the deceased.

Modern, Eul's No. 3.