1. The Plaintiff, within the scope of property inherited from the network E, Defendant B, Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, respectively, 28.

1. The non-party E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) asked the Plaintiff to lend money while running the oil manufacturing business, and requested the Plaintiff to do so, the non-party E, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, borrowed a sum of KRW 100 million on November 27, 2009 through Non-party F, including KRW 47 million and KRW 3 million, KRW 38 million on November 30, 2009, KRW 100 million through Non-party G, who is the Plaintiff’s seat, and KRW 12 million on December 21, 2009 through Non-Party G, who is the Plaintiff’s seat. The deceased’s death on April 15, 2012, did not conflict between the parties, or was inherited by Defendant C and his offspring, who is the wife, by taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money in proportion to their inheritance shares (Defendant B3/7, Defendant C, and D 2/7), with respect to the loans of KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff by the deceased, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Defendants’ defense defenses that the Defendants had the duty to pay the above borrowed money within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. Thus, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, the judgment of the Daejeon Family Court 2012-Ma843 against the deceased was accepted as of July 3, 2012. Thus, the Defendants’ defenses are with merit.

(1) The plaintiff did not report the loan claim of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff within the period of the public notice of the approval of the fixed-term inheritance, and the remaining inherited property is in the absence of any remaining inherited property, so the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants pursuant to Article 1039 of the Civil Code is without merit. However, the above reason is not a dispute as to the validity of the claim of this case against the defendants, but is merely a dispute over the execution subject to the judgment or the scope of executory power). Therefore, the plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, and the defendant B was 42,857,142 billion x 3/7