1. The extent of the property inherited from the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties C, D, E, F, G shall be limited to the extent of the property inherited from the deceased H.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 and all arguments:

The Network H agreed to pay 60,000,000 won in unpaid amount until December 30, 2007 (hereinafter “instant reimbursement agreement”) on April 3, 2007, when it borrowed money from the GJ and repaid part of money (hereinafter “instant reimbursement agreement”).

B. The deceased J died on May 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed I are the sole successors who are children of the deceased J.

C. Meanwhile, the network H died on August 11, 2015, and the Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointed C, D, E, F, and G are the sole inheritors as children of the network H.

2. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party I inherited one-half of the claim of the network J, and the Defendant (Appointed Party C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “Defendants”) have succeeded to one-six of the obligations of the network H. Thus, barring any special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) the amount of KRW 5,000,000 (=60,000 x 1/2 x 1/6) and the delay damages therefrom, and the amount of KRW 5,00,00,000 and the delay damages therefrom, respectively.

3. Defendant’s defense and judgment

A. 1) The defense of non-performance of the terms and conditions agreed that the loan amount of KRW 60,00,00 in the instant repayment agreement shall be transferred immediately after the loan amount of KRW 60,000 was urged to the K and received. At that time, the network H had already instituted a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount against K. The judgment was finalized in favor of the above lawsuit, but the K did not recover the claim due to its insolvent condition. Accordingly, since the terms and conditions set forth in the instant repayment agreement have not been fulfilled, the Defendants are not obliged to perform the instant repayment agreement. 2) As such, the Defendants did not have any obligation to perform the instant repayment agreement, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 5 and No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.