A. At around 2001, the Defendants prepared a loan certificate stating the following contents to E (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) and stated the name and resident registration number of the Defendants at the bottom of the certificate, and affixed the Defendants’ seals on the name side.

The amount of the loan certificate in l,00,000 won was borrowed as above. C will be responsible for all of the commitments in the course of its operation.

E Dec. 26, 2015, died on June 26, 2015, and Plaintiff B and F, the wife, inherited the property of the above E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2 and 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) around 2001, the deceased lent KRW 72,00,00 to the defendants. The defendants paid KRW 31,324,00 from May 11, 2001 to December 10, 201, the defendants paid KRW 40,676,00 (= KRW 72,00,000 - KRW 31,324,000 - KRW 31,324,000) which have not yet been paid, and the plaintiffs who succeeded to the claims of KRW 40,676,00,00 (= KRW 72,00,32,572, and KRW 11,521,714) which correspond to the plaintiffs' shares of inheritance to the defendants. 2) The defendants' assertion that the defendant C used the Chinese restaurant business and did not actually borrow money from the deceased, and there was no amount actually received from the deceased from the deceased from the deceased 2001.

5. By 79 days before October, 200, 200 won was paid in cash, and 1,8960,000 won was repaid, and 43,04,000 won was repaid through account transfer from May 11, 201 to January 28, 2012.

C. The above obligations are subject to the short-term extinctive prescription as the goods-price obligations, and even if not, commercial extinctive prescription is applied.