1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 12% per annum from August 1, 2006 to May 28, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 100 million to F, Defendant B, Nonparty G, and H on July 31, 2006 without setting the due date (the loan was paid by means of remitting it to Nonparty I designated by the above F, etc.) and the fact that the above G died on August 14, 2012 and succeeded to the above G on August 14, 2012, Defendant C, D, and E, Defendant C, D, and E, on January 30, 2013, a qualified acceptance was granted for the inherited property of the above G under the Busan Family Court Decision 2012Hun-Ma3980 on January 30, 2013, or there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the entries in evidence No. 1, 2, and 1, and evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings at the witness J’s testimony, this can be recognized.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won and to pay to the plaintiff 12% interest per annum from August 1, 2006 to May 28, 2013, the last delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

However, inasmuch as Defendant C, D, and E received qualified acceptance as the heir of G, the above Defendants C, D, and E are obligated to pay KRW 42,857,142 (b) (and less than KRW 3/7,000), Defendant D, and E, respectively, KRW 28,571,428 (and less than KRW 2/7,00,00) within the scope of the property inherited from the network G.

Defendant C, D, and E alleged to the effect that the said KRW 100 million was not the money that the Plaintiff lent to F, etc., but the said G, etc. was merely liable for having issued a loan certificate at the Plaintiff’s request. However, even if the actual process of payment is contrary to the allegations made by the said Defendants, G had the intent to provide a loan certificate of KRW 100 million in its name (Evidence 1) even if the actual process of payment was contrary to the allegations by the said Defendants, and G had the intent to provide a guarantee for the said money, and therefore, the said Defendants’ assertion is without merit). Therefore, this decision is delivered as per Disposition.