1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties indicated in the annexed list are all dismissed.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 160 million to Plaintiff E on April 19, 1996, and KRW 80 million on August 23, 1996, and KRW 160 million on August 23, 1996, but was paid part of the above loan on November 21, 200 and was not paid KRW 40 million on the remainder, which is the principal. On October 20, 2002, E died and succeeded to the property of Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated party C and D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On October 2018, the Defendant (Appointed Party) approved the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay 40 million won the unpaid loan amount to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, as the deceased’s property heir, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to their respective shares of inheritance and damages for delay, such as the remaining principal of the loan and the damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The amount of the loan principal borrowed from the Plaintiff by the Defendant (Appointed Party) is not KRW 180 million. The Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Deceased were fully repaid and extinguished. Even if some of the loan remains, the extinctive prescription expired after the lapse of ten years from April 19, 1996 and August 23, 1996, the date on which the claim was created.

2. Determination

A. As to the remainder of the leased principal of KRW 40 million and damages for delay thereof, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 160 million to the Deceased on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had lent KRW 120 million to the Deceased, but did not have been paid KRW 40 million for the remainder of the principal and KRW 40 million for the Plaintiff’s assertion, only by means of the health stand and the evidence of No. 1 through No. 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the leased principal is KRW 160 million, it cannot be recognized without examining further.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription, the evidence No. 1 to No. 4 of this case is respectively.