A. On October 20, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased golf loans in KRW 21,50,000, and around October 9, 2015, issued and delivered promissory notes representing KRW 30 million at face value to the Plaintiff, with the meaning that E would compensate for the said golf loans if it is not possible to return them.

B. On March 16, 2016, E died, and the Defendants, a child of E, inherited the deceased’s property.

The Defendants reported the qualified acceptance of the deceased’s property on the Incheon District Court’s 2016-Madan990. At the time, the Defendants stated the Plaintiff’s liability for damages amounting to KRW 21,50,000 on the list of small property, and the report was accepted on December 13, 2016.

C. The plaintiff is not entitled to return the above golf loans.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since E did not return golf loans to the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the inheritor of E, should pay KRW 21,500,000 to the Plaintiff as damages.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, E’s inheritors, succeeded to the deceased’s liability for damages to the Plaintiff in proportion to the portion of inheritance. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,750,000 (the golf bond price 21,50,000 x 1/2) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants’ defenses and the Plaintiff’s defenses 1) The Defendants asserted that they bear the deceased’s obligation only within the scope of inherited property. As such, as seen earlier, the Defendants approved the inheritance of the deceased’s property. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. (ii) As to this, the Plaintiff performed an act of disposal as to inherited property, such as receiving the insurance money of the deceased, who is inherited property.