1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, Defendant B shall be limited to 51,428,571 won, Defendant C and D, respectively, 34.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff, at the time of the Plaintiff’s request, lent to the network E a total of KRW 120,00,000 at 10.5% per annum and agreed to repay at any time at the time of the Plaintiff’s request. The Plaintiff asserted that E paid only interest on KRW 25,00,000 among this, and died without paying all the principal and interest on the remainder of the loan. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants, the heir.

B. Therefore, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the descriptions of health care units, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1.

1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 25,00,000 to E on August 13, 2012, KRW 20,000, KRW 50,000 on August 17, 2012, KRW 30,000 on February 28, 2013, KRW 25,000 on KRW 20,00 on February 14, 2014, and KRW 12,000 on a total amount of KRW 14,00,000 on February 14, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff died on June 23, 2015, and inherited the shares of KRW 3/7, Defendant B, his wife, Defendant C, and D, respectively.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay each of their respective inheritance shares to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is liable to pay KRW 51,428,571 (= KRW 120,00,000 x below KRW 3/7, and less than KRW 3/7; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant C and D respectively (=120,000,000 x 2/7).

The Plaintiff asserted that the interest on each of the above loans was agreed at 10.5% per annum with the network E, but it is not sufficient to recognize the interest solely with the statement of Gap evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed interest is without merit.

E. Therefore, the defendants shall be liable for each of the above amounts from the next day after they received a claim for performance due to the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The defendants asserted that their responsibilities should be limited to the scope of inherited property inasmuch as they were tried on the upper limit of the inherited property.

Pleadings shall be made in the statement in subparagraph 1 of this paragraph.