The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 30, 2008. The Plaintiff is the birth of the deceased, Defendant B’s wife, Defendant C, E, F, and G’s children.

B. The Deceased provided each land listed in [Attachment I] List Nos. 1 and 2, the land listed in [Attachment I] List Nos. 3 and buildings listed in [Attachment List Nos. 4 owned by the Deceased as collateral and borrowed from the J Association (hereinafter “J Association”). At the time of the Deceased’s death, the principal and interest of the loan amounted to KRW 279,916,901 (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”).

On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff, after the death of the Deceased, took over the obligation of the instant loans with exemption.

At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition, the above loans amounted to KRW 284,40,172 (=the above KRW 279,916,901 interest amounted to KRW 4,483,271).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Following the deceased’s death, the Defendants succeeded to KRW 284,400,172 of the loan obligations of this case according to the statutory inheritance ratio. The Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from its obligations by acquiring the above loan obligations with exemption.

B. As such, Defendant B, the wife of the Deceased, is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff: (i) KRW 77,563,683 (=284,40,172); (ii) KRW 3/11); and (iii/11); and (ii) the remaining Defendants are liable to pay damages for delay to each of the said money (i.e., KRW 284,40,172 x 2/172) and each of the said money.

3. Determination

A. We examine the case. The defendants exempted the obligations of the loan of this case by the plaintiff's exemption from the obligations of the loan of this case. It cannot be said that there are no legal grounds.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation of the instant loan by the Deceased and the Defendants merely changed the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the ground of the risk of executing the right to collateral security against the land owned by the deceased and the Defendants offered as security for the said loan obligation.