1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A is 14,493,581 won and 10.0

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4 as to the cause of the claim, the Bohsan Saemaul Fund established on December 27, 2002 with the interest rate of 11.5% per annum, delay damages rate of 19% per annum, delay damages rate of 19% per annum, and December 27, 2004 due date of payment, and Bohsan Saemaul Fund transferred D the above principal and interest on the loan to the Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives on February 13, 2013, and the Federation of Korea transferred the above credit to the plaintiff on August 7, 2015. The Bohsan Saemaul Fund and the Korea Community Credit Cooperatives Federation notified the transfer of the above credit by content-certified mail to D on September 14, 2015, the remaining amount as of August 7, 2015, the interest rate of 300 won per annum and interest rate of 30% per annum and interest rate of 94.5% per annum and interest rate per annum.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages for KRW 14,493,581 (=33,818,356 won x less than KRW 3/7, and less than KRW 3/7; hereinafter the same shall apply) and for KRW 10,217,959 (=23,841,906 won x 3/7), and Defendant B and C are obligated to pay delay damages for KRW 9,62,387 (=3,818,356 x 33,818,356 x 2) and 6,81,973 won among them (=23,841,906 x 2/7).

2. As to the judgment on the defendants' defense, the defendants were subject to a judgment on limited qualification of inheritance after the death of D, and therefore, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, the facts that the Defendants were tried to approve the inheritance of D’s property on August 23, 2015 (Cheongju District Court 201Mo507) after the death of D, and that the Defendants were tried to approve the inheritance of D’s property on August 23, 2015 (Cheongju District Court 201Mo

Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay the above debts within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. Therefore, the above defense is justified.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants are the successors of D within the scope of property inherited from D, and Defendant A is the defendants 14,493.