1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A and C jointly and severally commit 175,078,925 won and 48,98,279 won among them.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 22, 2002, the network D obtained a loan by designating 50 million won under the joint and several sureties of Defendant A and C from the Daegu Fiber Credit Union as 22% per annum on May 22, 2004, interest rate of 13.5% per annum, and interest interest rate of 22% per annum.

B. The Plaintiff, via Liber A Co., Ltd., Ltd., from Daegu-do Fiber Credit Union.

The claims mentioned in the paragraph were assigned in sequence, and notified to the Defendants.

The remainder of the principal and interest of KRW 175,078,925 as of July 5, 2017 is the principal and interest of KRW 126,090,646 (= principal and interest of KRW 48,98,279).

C. The Deceased died on June 3, 2011.

As the inheritor of the deceased, there are Defendants A and C, the spouse of the deceased, and the Defendants were subject to a qualified acceptance trial on October 10, 201 on the inheritance of the deceased’s property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, Defendant A and C shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 22% per annum from January 13, 2018 to the date following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as joint and several sureties, and from January 13, 2018 to the date of full payment. Defendant B shall jointly and severally pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 50,022,50 won (i.e., inheritance shares 175,078,925 x 2/7) and 13,96,623 won from January 13, 2018 to the date of full payment (i.e., the date following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as joint and several sureties. Defendant B, as the heir of the Deceased, shall be jointly and severally paid damages for delay calculated at the rate of 22% per annum from the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant A and C are subject to a qualified acceptance judgment, they claim that they bear the obligation within the scope of the inherited property of the deceased, as shown in Defendant B, but the Plaintiff sought performance of the joint and several liability obligation, not the inheritance obligation, to the above Defendants. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.