1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Upon the plaintiff's addition to this court, the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. During the period from April 10, 201 to December 13, 2013, the loan certificates for “the borrower: the Defendant” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant loan certificates”) drafted eight times in total as indicated below.

The loan amount as of April 10, 201, KRW 100 million, KRW 50,000,000,000 on July 11, 201, KRW 3200,000,000 (the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff) on June 16, 2013, written “D Return” as of June 16, 201, KRW 50,000,000,000,000 on June 26, 2013, written “D Return” as of KRW 650,000,000,000 on July 29, 201, KRW 700,000,00 on October 16, 2013.

B. D died on March 30, 2014

(hereinafter “the network D”). The deceased’s heir, who is the spouse, G, H, and I, were the Plaintiff and their children.

On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Seoul Family Court for the qualified acceptance of inheritance of D’s property, and the above court accepted the said report on July 25, 2014.

The Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court 2014 Madan5299). G, H, and I reported each renunciation of inheritance with respect to the above inheritance to the Seoul Family Court on June 10, 2014, and on July 31, 2014, the above court accepted each of the above declarations.

(Court of 2014 Gao-Ma5300 case). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 9, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. The defendant by the plaintiff D

1.(a)

A total of KRW 1.5 billion was lent on eight occasions, such as the statement in the table of paragraph.

The network D had a loan claim against the defendant about KRW 1.45 billion, excluding the amount of KRW 50 million stated in No. 3 of the above table among the amount stated in the above table.

The Plaintiff, as a sole heir of the network D, seek for the payment of KRW 450 million, which is part of the above claim amount, and for the delayed payment thereof.

In this case, the Plaintiff did not make consistent arguments as to which amount was claimed out of the amount stated in each of the above loans.