2. The Defendant’s KRW 16,66,66 for the Plaintiff and its related costs from February 5, 2004 to July 2013.

A. The net C borrowed 25,00,000 won from D on September 13, 1996 at the interest rate of 24% per annum and due date of repayment on September 12, 1997 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

B. The deceased on August 18, 1997, and the defendant (the inheritance ratio 3/5) and his wife succeeded to the debt of the loan of this case. The deceased on October 23, 1999 and the deceased on October 23, 199 and the deceased on the deceased on the deceased on the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the debt of this case.

Accordingly, the percentage of inheritance of the debt of this case is 1/15 (2/5 X 1/6) and 2/3 (3/51/15) of the defendant.

C. Meanwhile, D filed a loan lawsuit against the defendant and the deceased E with the Daegu District Court 97Kadan95268, and the above court rendered a judgment on May 4, 1998 that "the plaintiff (D), the defendant Eul 15 million won, the defendant Eul 10 million won, the defendant Eul 10 million won, and the defendant Eul 20 percent per annum from September 13, 1996 to January 12, 1998, and the 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on June 3, 1998.

(hereinafter referred to as "existing final and conclusive judgment") d.

On February 4, 2004, the Plaintiff paid to D the full amount of the loan of this case, interest accrued until the loan of this case, and delay damages (hereinafter “instant repayment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to establish the judgment management of the cause of a claim, it is required that, first of all, the office work is another person’s business and there is an intention to vest the actual benefit of management on behalf of another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of the office work is disadvantageous to the principal or against the principal’s will.

The repayment by a third party is itself a debtor.