A. Defendant A is entitled to KRW 39,843,203 within the scope of the property inherited from the network D and KRW 34,285 among them.

A. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned 80 million won by setting the rate of damages for delay at 17% per annum to the network D on May 13, 2015, plus 5.08% per annum to the market standard interest rate per annum, and by setting the rate of damages for delay at 17% per annum.

B. The deceased on April 3, 2015, and the deceased on April 3, 2015, Defendant A (Inheritance Shares 3/7) and Defendant B and Defendant C (Inheritance Shares 2/7), who are the wife, succeeded to the deceased D.

C. The Defendants failed to repay part of the above principal and interest by the due date. As of July 29, 2015, the Defendants still remain liable for the principal and interest of KRW 80 million and interest of KRW 12,967,474, a total of KRW 92,967,474.

On June 2, 2015, the Defendants filed a report on the inheritance limited recognition with the Incheon District Court 2015-Ma1635 on June 2, 2015 with respect to the inheritance of the network D and accepted on August 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of the determination as above, Defendant A is liable to the Plaintiff for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 30, 2015 to the day of full repayment with respect to the principal and interest liability of 39,843,203 won (won 92,967,474 x KRW 3/7; hereinafter the same shall apply) up to July 29, 2015 and the principal amount of 34,285,714 won ( KRW 80,000 x 3/7) up to the day of full payment, which is the rate of 15% per annum from July 30, 2015 to the day of full payment, Defendant B and Defendant C are liable to pay the principal and interest liability of 26,562,135 (won 296,47, 297, 297, 2074 and 278) up to the extent of inherited property from the network D x the principal and interest rate of 25.7

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants of this case is accepted in its reasoning.