1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C.

1. According to the records on the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, since it can be acknowledged that the defendant submitted the appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after he became aware that the documents of lawsuit, including a copy of the complaint of the first instance, and the original copy of the judgment, were served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the defendant was not aware of the facts of the lawsuit of this case and the

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including serial numbers) and the arguments as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned 50 million won to the deceased C (hereinafter "the deceased") at the rate of 2% per month for the first two months, and 3% per month for the next two months, and the deceased delayed the performance of the above loan loan obligation, and the plaintiff filed an order of payment with Seoul Northern District Court 2007Hu7508 to seek payment of the remaining principal and interest of the above loan and delayed delay damages (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The above payment order was served on the deceased on August 7, 2007 and confirmed on August 22, 2007; the deceased's claim for the above payment order was delivered at the rate of 15% per annum and 206% per annum, and the deceased's joint heir's claim for payment of the deceased's property to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the inheritor of the deceased, is obligated to pay 3,144,00 won (=7,860,000 won x 2/5) and damages for delay according to the Defendant’s inheritance shares (2/5 shares) among the deceased’s obligations arising from the instant payment order, which became final and conclusive to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion was admitted to the inheritance of the deceased, and the inherited property is limited to the small property, and the plaintiff's assertion is limited to the inherited property.