1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 3,00,000 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 25, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff lent M a total of KRW 30 million (=20 million + KRW 10 million + KRW 10 million) to M on May 26, 2012.

B. M died on April 8, 2015.

The deceased M's heir had L(N prior to the opening of name) and childO, and P, but O and P reported the renunciation of inheritance on June 29, 2015 and reported on July 10, 2015.

(Seoul Family Court Branch of 2015 Madan162), c.

L (formerly: N) died on July 23, 2015, and the Defendants, siblings, jointly inherited L’s property. On March 8, 2016, other than Defendant B, the Defendants reported the qualified acceptance of inheritance, and filed a report on May 3, 2016.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the branch court of Gwangju District, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts as seen earlier, the deceased M bears the obligation to return the borrowed amount of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and the obligation to return the borrowed amount was succeeded in succession to the Defendants via L to the deceased M.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 15, 2016 to September 25, 2016, each of the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case (Defendant H, I, C, D, F, G: January 16, 2016; January 21, 2016; Defendant E, J: Defendant E, and J: March 15, 2016; Defendant B: September 25, 2016) and each of them, which correspond to their respective shares of inheritance, within the scope of inherited property, since the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant B filed a qualified acceptance report.

(Article 1028 and Article 1029 of the Civil Code). Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the remaining defendants except the defendant B is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and each claim is justified.