1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointeds) to the Plaintiff is KRW 316,666, and the designated parties.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on December 21, 2006, lent to the Deceased the sum of KRW 4.3 million on May 31, 2007, KRW 9.7 million on July 12, 2007, KRW 9.7 million on the deceased’s account (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Plaintiff, on August 2007, remitted a sum of KRW 2 million to the Deceased’s F’s account, KRW 3 million on July 20, 2009, and lent it to the Deceased or F. However, the Plaintiff submitted the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number) to the effect that it was not included in the claim amount of this case, and thus, did not determine this.

B. The Deceased died on October 25, 2016, while the trial was pending in the trial, and the Defendant (the appointed party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the appointed parties inherited the deceased’s property in proportion to 2/9 shares, respectively, as the wife and children of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Deceased, through a preparatory document dated July 11, 2016, acknowledged that the loan of this case was borrowed from the Plaintiff. On the second date for pleading of the first instance trial, the Deceased appeared at the court of first instance and stated that the money entered from the Plaintiff was lent to the Plaintiff while stating the said preparatory document, and led to the confession of the fact that the loan of this case was borrowed from the Plaintiff.

However, at the trial, the Defendant stated in the purport that the confession is revoked by asserting that the above loan was not borrowed from the Plaintiff.

However, the party who revokes a confession is against the truth and must prove that the confession was due to mistake, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, the confession still remains valid;

Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that 2.45 million won was paid out of 9.7 million won for the instant loan, and sought payment of the remainder 7.25 million won and damages for delay.

For this reason,