2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was engaged in monetary transactions with the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”). Defendant B is the wife of the deceased, and Defendant C is the mother of the deceased.

B. On September 12, 2013, the Deceased died. F, the wife of the Deceased, and G, the children of the Defendant B and the Deceased, were the children of the Gwangju Family Court, and G, the Gwangju Family Court’s net support 2013Ra964, filed a request for the waiver of inheritance and received a decision of acceptance on January 2, 2014.

Accordingly, Defendant C was the only heir of the deceased, but the above court did not request a judgment of acceptance on inheritance-limited authorization as the above court No. 2015-Ma169, and received the decision of acceptance on March 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 3 and 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C asserts that the conciliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B prior to the instant lawsuit (this Court’s objection to claim, ownership transfer registration of 2014Kadan15198 (Counterclaim), and ownership transfer registration of 2014Gadan15204 (Counterclaim), hereinafter “prior civil lawsuit”) was concluded and confirmed thereafter, the conciliation was concluded and concluded. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata effect of the prior civil lawsuit.

However, even according to Defendant C’s assertion, the preceding civil lawsuit is merely a lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and is not against Defendant C, and thus res judicata effect of the preceding civil lawsuit does not extend to the lawsuit in this case.

As to this, Defendant C alleged that the parties of the preceding civil lawsuit against the deceased’s heir should be seen as Defendant C, but it cannot be accepted merely because it was the unilateral assertion of Defendant C.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

B. As to the merits of the case, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 borrowed KRW 165 million from the Plaintiff before his birth, whichever is about KRW 128 million.