1. The Defendants, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, shall be KRW 10,500,000, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned to D on September 30, 2014, KRW 15 million due date for payment, which was determined on October 30, 2014, and lent KRW 6 million again on October 14, 2014 as the due date for payment on November 10, 2014. Since D dies on January 24, 2015, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of damages for delay equivalent to KRW 1/2 of their respective inheritance shares, which correspond to KRW 12,50 million due to D’s death.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, since the Defendants received a qualified acceptance trial from the court after the death of D, the Defendants asserted that they assume the above obligations only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 1, the Defendants filed a request for a judgment on the qualified acceptance trial on August 26, 2015, for which the Suwon District Court rendered a decision on the qualified acceptance trial on inheritance under the name of Suwon District Court Decision No. 2015-Ma566 after the deceased’s death. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants are obligated to claim against the Plaintiff as to the existence or scope of performance obligations from May 14, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, within the scope of the inherited property from the network D, to November 25, 2015, which is the date of the sentencing of this case, to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.