1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,700,000 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C; and (b) on December 2013, 2013.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff loaned the network C a sum of KRW 98,70,000 from December 12, 2011 to June 15, 2012, the net C repaid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 58,000,000 out of the above money. The network C prepared a certificate of confirmation that the Plaintiff remains a borrowed amount of KRW 40,70,000 on September 22, 2012 (Evidence No. 2), and on November 12, 2013, the court accepted the above report of cash custody (Evidence No. 3070,070,000,000 won until December 30, 2013, the court accepted the above report of inheritance No. 1401, Mar. 14, 2014.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the heir of the network C, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 40,77 million of the loan, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 31, 2013 to February 5, 2015, which is the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of February 10, 2015, and 20% per annum as of February 10, 2015, which is the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of February 10, 2015.

2. The Defendant’s assertion argues that the net C used the leased vehicle to the Plaintiff due to the difficulty of repayment of the loan, and that the net C and the Defendant paid the monthly rent of KRW 14,162,30 on the said car, which should be deducted from the loan obligation, as it partially repaid the loan obligation.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the net C entered into a car lease contract with the amount of loans of KRW 46,466,50,00, and the principal amount of KRW 8,114,757, interest of KRW 6,047,543, the sum of KRW 14,162,30.