1. The Defendants each of the KRW 24,929,819 and each of the KRW 5,720,000 among the Defendants shall be from February 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The basic facts are as listed in the separate sheet of grounds for claim, “the changed cause for claim(1)” and “the changed cause for claim(2).”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3 through 6 (including each number), Gap evidence 7 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, as the deceased F’s inheritors, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19.5% per annum from February 1, 2014 to the day of full payment with respect to each of the above F’s obligation to take over KRW 24,929,819 and KRW 5,720,00, respectively, to the Plaintiff, within the limit of the property inherited from the deceased F, and each of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 27% per annum from February 1, 2014 to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 23,172.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that: (a) the Seoul Family Court Decision 2013 Madern 9605 decided to grant an inheritance limited recognition; (b) the Defendants’ reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the above netF; and (c) the Defendants’ payment of the costs of lawsuit is unreasonable on the grounds that

The plaintiff accepted the above note 1 of the defendants and already reflected it in the purport of the claim. Thus, the defendants' above note 1 is without merit.

In addition, the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the losing party (Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the Defendants voluntarily recognized that they are responsible for the repayment within the scope of inherited property by succeeding the above net F’s obligations to the Plaintiff. Therefore, they subsequently lost.

Therefore, the defendants, who are contrary to the above law, are not subject to merit.

3. If so, each of the instant claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.