1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, as to Defendant D, KRW 100,00,000 against Plaintiff B and its related thereto from December 7, 2017 to August 13, 2019.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the amended portion of 2.2” and “3. Additional judgment”, and thus, citing it by the main sentence

(However, the part of the first instance court, which is revised on February 2, 200, by the withdrawal of appeal, is revised on 5 pages 9 in Seoul Central District Court. (Seoul Central District Court)

The second written judgment of the court of first instance revised "2,253,575/2,462,196,50" into "22,253,575/2,462,196,50" as "22,575/2,462,196,50."

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is revised to F and N with "F and N".

According to the records of evidence No. 18 of the first instance judgment (excluding the part on the table), the following amendments are made from 8 pages 12 (excluding the part on the table) to 14 pages 14 of the same case.

『앞서 본 바와 같이 원고 A은 H 명의로 부과된 상속세를 납부한 2007. 10. 24.경부터 H이 사망한 2017. 1. 18.경까지 장기간 어머니 H을 부양하면서도 H에 대하여 자신이 납부한 상속세액의 구상을 구한 바 없는 것으로 보이는 점, 원고 A은 2010. 2.경 피고들 대신 납부한 상속세의 구상을 위해 피고들 소유 부동산에 대한 가압류신청을 하여 인용된 바 있으나(서울동부지방법원 2010카단814호, 갑 제18호증 참조), H 소유의 재산에 대해서는 아무런 조치도 취하지 않은 점, 원고 A은 자신의 상속분을 초과하여 망부(亡父) G의 재산 중 가장 큰 몫을 차지하는 이 사건 I 부동산을 상속하였던 점 등을 종합하여 보면,』 제1심판결문 13면 21행부터 15면 8행까지를 다음과 같이 수정한다.

1) In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 10, defendant D, on July 3, 2006, prepared a letter stating that "the plaintiff B shall first bring part of the amount of KRW 100 million out of the inheritance (L apartment) of the inheritance (L apartment), and that other property than this apartment shall be waived."