1. Defendant B and D with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 70 million and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff, from December 24, 2013, and Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff loaned to E, KRW 17.6 million on Nov. 21, 2008, KRW 26.4 million on Feb. 12, 2009, KRW 17.6 million on Mar. 23, 2009, KRW 17.6 million on Apr. 17, 2009, KRW 26.4 million on Jan. 25, 2010, KRW 16.4 million on Mar. 25, 2010, KRW 26.6 million on Aug. 5, 2010, KRW 305 million on Aug. 30, 2010, KRW 6.4 million on Oct. 1, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Plaintiff received repayment of KRW 4.6 million out of the loan 200 million from E.

C. The Defendants, a child of E, jointly inherited the property upon the death of E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants jointly inherited the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 210 million (i.e., KRW 210 million - KRW 4.6 million - 4.6 million) and damages for delay. The Defendants are obligated to pay each damages for delay of KRW 20 million per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 27, 2013 to the date following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, clearly indicated in the record, with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 70 million and each of the above amounts, according to the inheritance ratio to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the amount of the instant loan cannot be recognized, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the description of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the Defendants alleged that they would sell real estate owned by E and repay the debt of the instant loan, but the said assertion by the Defendants alone cannot oppose the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's defendants.