1. The Defendant: (a) within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased F, KRW 59,600,000, and the said amount, on the part of the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

1) From May 30, 2016 to September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 59,600,000 to F on a total of 33 occasions, as shown in the attached Table, as shown in the attached Table. 2) On July 27, 2018, F died, and G, the spouse of the Defendant and his/her children, jointly succeeded to the networkF, but G and H renounced renounced their inheritance, and the Defendant solely succeeded to the networkF’s property.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, who is the sole heir of the deceased F, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 59,600,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is proved to be responsible for the repayment of the net F's above loan obligations within the scope of the property inherited from the net F, since the judgment of the defendant was made on qualified acceptance regarding the deceased F's property inheritance.

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the defendant filed a report on the inheritance limited approval with the Changwon District Court Branch 2018Ra409 on August 22, 2018, and the above court can recognize the fact that the above report was accepted on August 24, 2018. Thus, the defendant's defense is well-grounded.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, on June 3, 2018, prior to the death of the deceased F, it is not reasonable that the Plaintiff made a defense of qualified acceptance as long as the Defendant is in the position to assume the Plaintiff’s obligation through his own property, as long as the Defendant is in the position to assume the Plaintiff’s obligation through his/her own property, it is not reasonable to make a defense of qualified acceptance.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is premised on the premise that “the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content that the Defendant would take over the Defendant’s above loan obligations concurrently.”

However, there is a problem.