2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, D died without paying the above loan.

The Plaintiff is the transferee who received the loan claim from E and is the co-inheritors of D. The Defendants seek 42.5 million won (85 million won x 1/2) and damages for delay calculated by dividing the above loan within the scope of inherited property from D by inheritance shares.

2. The following evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff for the following reasons are insufficient to acknowledge that “E lent KRW 85 million to D on March 7, 2003,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

If Gap evidence No. 1 (Promise Promissory Notes) 1 (A) is compared with Gap's certificate No. 6-2 (Certificate No. 6-2) and the seal impression shown in the result of the fact-finding on the Fdong community service center of this court, it is presumed that the authenticity of the document is established as a whole, since the seal following D's name is recognized as being based on D's seal) cannot be proved as evidence that "E lent KRW 85 million to D on March 7, 2003."

The reasons are as follows.

① In light of the fact that a large amount of KRW 85 million is leased without any security, no interest agreement was made, and the issue date of a promissory note is more than 4 years retroactively, the statement itself cannot be trusted.

② The Plaintiff is not able to present objective financial data proving that E lends KRW 85 million to D, and the witness G and E’s testimony related to whether E lends KRW 85 million to D is difficult to believe as follows.

(3) The delivery of a promissory note, which is not a loan certificate, in a document evidencing a loan, shall be in the same way.

B. The evidence No. 2 (each note) No. 2 (each note) shall be admitted as evidence as there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the petition.