A. On February 14, 2008, the Defendant: (a) drafted and rendered to H a payment angle stating that “the payment of KRW 100 million is to be made from February 14, 2009 to February 2, 2012; and (b) died on March 5, 2015; and (b) the heir was the Plaintiff A, his/her child, Plaintiff B, C, Da, Da, E, and F. [The heir is the Plaintiff, the spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff A, and the heir of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff C, the M&D, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages therefor pursuant to the payment angle of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 33,333,333 won (=100,00,000 x KRW 3/9,000 x less than 3/9,000; hereinafter the same shall apply) among the plaintiff's 33,333,330 won, the plaintiff Eul, and 22,222,2222 won (=10,000,000 x 2/9 2/9) the above plaintiffs' claim against the defendant among the following amounts: KRW 22,222,80,00 and KRW 9,523,809 x 6/63,000 x annual interest rate of KRW 6,349,200,000 and annual interest rate of KRW 35,010/630).

B. Defendant’s assertion and determination 1) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant letter of payment was prepared by H’s intimidation, and that it was a juristic act to be null and void or cancelled. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant asserted that the claim based on the instant letter of payment expired by prescription with a claim arising around 1999, and that the statute of limitations for commercial claims expired even if it was claimed based on the instant letter of payment.

However, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge that the instant letter of payment was a juristic act to be null and void or cancelled, a claim based on the instant letter of payment.