Around November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff’s father, who jointly operates the E company (Defendant B is the birth of Defendant B, Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B), lent KRW 50 million to the Defendants. D died on January 8, 2014, and the Plaintiff, who is his father, succeeded to D’s property, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the return of the above loan around June 16, 2016, which was before the instant lawsuit was filed.

The Plaintiff, on December 10, 2013, lent KRW 10 million to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff asserted that the loan claims were inherited by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, according to the entries in the evidence Nos. 8-2, and No. 1 through No. 5, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that D remitted KRW 10 million to the passbook in the name of Defendant B (E company) on December 10, 2013. However, in addition, considering that the above amount is a loan, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from February 11, 2017 following the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day when the Defendants dispute on the existence or scope of the obligation, until September 12, 2017, which is the day when the judgment was rendered by the Defendants, to the day when they dispute on the existence or scope of the obligation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on some grounds, and the remainder is dismissed on the ground that there is no ground.