1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on November 14, 2017. The Plaintiff B is the wife of the deceased, the Plaintiff A’s children, and the Defendant is the husband of E, who is his/her father.

- The Deceased shall pay to the Defendant 80,000,000 won with an annual interest of 8% per annum from June 1, 2007 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

- The cause of the claim on the written application for payment order: the Defendant loaned 80 million won to the Deceased on May 29, 2007, and the Defendant’s interest and delay damages.

B. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Deceased (2017 tea3203). Accordingly, on November 6, 2017, the original copy of the payment order was served on the Deceased on November 8, 2017, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on November 23, 2017.

The main contents of the above payment order shall be as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [This case’s payment order ] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. 1) The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant lent KRW 80 million to the deceased, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant continued to assert that the facts were different in relation to the assertion that the defendant lent KRW 80 million to the deceased, and that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant ordered the deceased to give KRW 80 million to the deceased, and that E is the F land and buildings of the Hensan-gu in the Jeonju City (hereinafter “F real estate

2) The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, upon the deceased’s request for the donation and request, there was an aspect to prepare for a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act regarding F Real Estate, in order to pretend that the deceased might have caused taxes to be incurred at the time of donation. The Plaintiffs also asserted that F Real Estate had a aspect to prepare for a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act regarding F Real Estate. The F Real Estate was granted a provisional registration for the claim for transfer of ownership and the establishment registration

The letter of loan in this case seems to be true and correct.