A. On February 11, 2008, the deceased E (the Deceased’s Death on August 29, 2015, hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) drafted a letter of payment with the purport that the Plaintiff would repay the Plaintiff’s borrowed money in total by the end of December, 295,00,000, and would make payment with the interest calculated at 20% per annum if it is not possible to do so (hereinafter referred to as “each letter of this case”) and attached a certificate of personal seal impression issued on December 28, 2007.

B. The Defendants jointly inherited the deceased’s child due to the death of the deceased. The Defendants filed a report of inheritance limited recognition with the District Court Decision 2015Ra2383, and the said court rendered a judgment on July 7, 2016 to accept the Defendants’ report.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from January 1, 2010 to the date of full payment, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased (=295,00,000 won in statutory inheritance x less than KRW 1/3,00 in statutory inheritance x less than KRW) and the amount of interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2010 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff jointly sought payment of the total amount of the deceased's debt to the defendants, but the inherited debt shall be divided to the co-inheritors according to their statutory shares in inheritance. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. The Defendants asserted that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion cannot be confirmed as to whether the deceased prepared the instant letter. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the deceased’s seal imprint is affixed to the deceased’s name next to the deceased’s respective letter of this case. If the seal imprinted by his/her seal affixed on the private document was displayed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.