1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 104,141,318.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank’s declaration of bankruptcy on September 26, 2013.

As the deceased A (the deceased on May 14, 201 and the following “the deceased”)’s legal successors waive inheritance, the above bank applied for the appointment of an administrator of inherited property under this Court No. 2012-Ma1124. The court appointed the Defendant as an administrator of inherited property on September 5, 2012.

B. On April 19, 201, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank concluded a credit transaction agreement with the Deceased on a credit limit of KRW 261,00,000, the expiration date of the credit, the overdue interest rate of KRW 11.7%, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 23%. The Deceased lost its profits due to its failure to pay the agreed interest pursuant to the credit transaction agreement. The unpaid interest still remains in KRW 104,141,318.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Based on the above facts of recognition as to the assertion on the cause of claim, the Defendant, as an administrator of inherited property of the Deceased, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the accrued interest of KRW 104,141,318 as the inherited property of the Deceased.

Therefore, the argument of the cause of the claim in this case is with merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant alleged that he/she performed all the deceased's obligations under the above credit transaction agreement, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(No. 1-11) The defendant's application for examination of evidence is insufficient to recognize it only with each statement of evidence No. 1-11.

The defendant asserts that the above interest in arrears is an interest claim as stipulated in Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years, so the plaintiff's above claim has expired by prescription.

The "interest in arrears paid after the payment period" sought by the Plaintiff as the instant case is not interest, but interest is not interest, due to delay in the performance of the monetary obligation, and within one year as stipulated in Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code.