1. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The part against Defendant C and D in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 1997, the Plaintiff lent KRW 51,000,000 to Defendant B and his husband’s husband E.

B. On June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the payment order claiming the return of the above loan against Defendant B and the network E. The above court ordered the Defendant B and the network E to pay the payment order “51,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the payment order to the day of complete payment.” The above payment order was served on August 1, 2005 to Defendant B and the network E, and became final and conclusive on August 17, 2005.

C. The network E died on April 23, 201, and the Defendants jointly inherited the network E.

After that, the Defendants filed a report on the inheritance limited recognition with the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch 201 Doz.815, and the report was accepted on September 4, 201.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 4, 2015 for the extension of extinctive prescription.

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

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 2, 2005 to the day of full payment, respectively, of the above KRW 51,571,428 among the above KRW 51,00,000,00 with each of the above KRW 51,571,428 (=51,00,000 x 2/7 of each inheritance share x less than KRW 2/7,00), and each of them, with each of the above KRW 51,00,000.

(3) The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ assertion against the Defendants cannot be determined separately on the ground that the Defendants’ assertion against the Defendants is based on the parts that succeeded to the deceased E’s debt and the part that succeeded to the deceased’s debt overlaps with the part that succeeded to the deceased’s debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1538, Apr. 2, 201).

A. Defendant B’s defense of the extinctive prescription had expired due to Defendant B’s defense that the Plaintiff’s above loan claim expired, and thus, Defendant B’s claim of this case occurred around July 1997.