1. The Defendants are either KRW 37,250,000, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D to the Plaintiff.

1. Under the trade name of “E,” the Plaintiff is a person operating the interior company, and D is a person operating a communications device trading company under the trade name of “F.”

D The heir died on December 21, 2013, and the Defendants were born between the former wife G and the former wife.

On March 19, 2014, the Defendants filed a petition with Seoul Family Court 2014Ra2674 for a trial on recognition of succession, and the said report was accepted on June 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the evidence No. 1-2, No. 7, and No. 8 of the judgment on the claim for construction cost, and the purport of witness H’s testimony and pleading as to the whole, the Defendant concluded a interior construction contract with D on June 10, 2013 with respect to “F” 2, which was operated by D, and completed the said construction. As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16,50,000 (=33,000,000 x 1/2) and damages for delay corresponding thereto, within the scope of property inherited from D.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff concluded and completed the construction work at the interior of “F” No. 1,50,000 won, which was operated by D, with D on April 20, 2013. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction work at the interior of “F,” which was operated by D, was completed, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff performed the construction work at the level of money as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though it is recognized that the said evidence was lower, and that the construction work at the site was concluded as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

B. In full view of Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1, No. 2, and 3 as to the loan claim, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff shall be deemed as having been a whole.