1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff’s limit of the property inherited from Nonparty B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 26, 2010, the network B (hereinafter “the network”) was loaned KRW 10,000,000 as a general loan from the Mapo Savings Bank (the “Seman-2 Savings Bank prior to the change”; hereinafter “Saving Bank”) with a maturity of 10,000,000 as a general loan, respectively, at the interest rate of April 26, 201, 18 per annum, and 30% per annum.

B. On April 26, 2011, the Deceased extended the due date for the above loan to April 26, 201, but did not exceed April 26, 2012. However, until April 25, 2012, the Deceased repaid the interest on the above loan to the Savings Bank and lost the benefit of time thereafter.

The deceased’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff remain in KRW 10,00,000,000,000 as of July 1, 2013, and KRW 3,397,259,00,000,00 for overdue interest from April 26, 2012 to July 1, 2013.

C. The Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on April 29, 2014 by Seoul Central District Court 2014Hahap53, and the Plaintiff appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy by the above court taken over the instant legal proceedings.

As the Deceased died with his wife Defendant and son C on December 17, 2013, the Defendant and the Appointor C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) accept the report of qualified acceptance on February 27, 2014 in the Suwon District Court 2014-Mo476 inheritance approval case on May 12, 2014.

‘A decision was made'.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants are liable to pay the deceased’s debts and damages for delay in accordance with their respective statutory shares of inheritance, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion: (a) the Plaintiff filed a joint claim against the deceased’s guarantee obligation with respect to D; (b) the relevant portion was withdrawn as the Defendants’ objection; and (c) the error of excessive claim is erroneous on the Plaintiff.