1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A’s KRW 33,604,120 and KRW 21,857,142 among them:

B. Defendant B and C shall each be 22,402.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 57,000,00 to D, and D lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in payment of interest from February 9, 2013.

B. As of July 11, 2016, the above loan loans amounting to KRW 78,409,614 in total, including principal KRW 51,00,00,00, attempted interest and overdue interest KRW 27,409,614, remain. The agreed delay damages rate is 15% per annum.

C. Meanwhile, D died on February 16, 2013, and D’s wife and the Defendants jointly inherited D’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to their inheritance shares and its delay damages out of the net D’s loan obligations.

B. On this issue, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the qualified acceptance report of inheritance was accepted, and thus, the above loan obligations shall be borne within the scope of the net D’s inherited property.

On November 12, 2013, 2013, the High Government District Court of the Doldong District rendered a ruling to accept the Defendants’ report of qualified acceptance (2013-Ma1088) on June 20, 2013, and the fact that the said ruling became final and conclusive on November 18, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the judgment of the family court on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance is recognized as meeting the requirements of qualified acceptance, but it does not confirm its effect, so the final judgment on whether the effect of qualified acceptance of inheritance is effective is a matter to be decided in civil procedure according to the substantive law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882 Decided November 8, 2002, etc.) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882, Nov. 8, 2002). The Defendants, despite receiving retirement allowance claims against the network D companies by inheritance, received payment of KRW 64,07,97 from the K companies on March 12, 2013, acknowledged that the above retirement allowance was not entered in the inventory when filing the report on the qualified acceptance.