1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal is that the Defendant jointly assumed the Defendant’s debt equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance for the following reasons among the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s husband. However, the first instance court is unreasonable.

① The Defendant stated that his share of inheritance was fully repaid through a written response submitted by the first instance court prior to the date of pleading, and that the extinctive prescription was complete for the shares of his children, but thereafter, the Defendant did not fully repay the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff at the first instance court date of pleading.

The statement of the defendant is considered to have been recognized as having accepted the obligation of children's share of inheritance.

② After the husband’s death (on December 22, 2005), the Defendant found the Defendant around 2013, which was the husband, and signed his signature on the Plaintiff at the bottom of the loan certificate in the name of C prepared as of December 9, 2004.

The Defendant’s signature should be interpreted to the effect that the Defendant would repay all the remaining obligations of the instant loan, which is premised on the Defendant’s concurrent acquisition of the Defendant’s inheritance obligations.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant concurrently acquired the Plaintiff’s inheritance obligation, even if the Defendant made a statement as alleged by the Plaintiff, inasmuch as the Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription has expired with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance among the instant loans, and disputing the performance of said obligation, the said statement by the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is insufficient.