1. The Defendant shall within the scope of the property inherited from the network D:

A. As to the Plaintiff A, KRW 270,000,000 and this.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the mother of the network D (hereinafter “the network”).

B. From March 15, 2007 to March 27, 2015, Plaintiff A remitted total of KRW 188,200,000 to the deceased under the name of the principal, husband E (F before the opening of the name) or Dong G.

C. On October 8, 2015, the Deceased prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a letter of performance (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) stating that “The Deceased will pay to A by performing a loan of KRW 270,000,000 in the H Association at 10:0 a.m. on October 10, 2015.”

Plaintiff

B transferred total of KRW 90,00,000 to the Deceased from October 23, 2014 to December 30, 2015.

E. On February 4, 2016, the Deceased died. On February 23, 2016, the Deceased’s husband I and her children J, and K reported the renunciation of inheritance on the deceased’s property on February 23, 2016.

5. 2. The repair was tried by Suwon District Court 16 Hun-Ma428

F. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant reported a qualified acceptance on the deceased’s property, and was tried to repair on June 30, 2016 by Suwon District Court 2016Ra429.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers for those with a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff A’s claim cause, the Plaintiff agreed to settle the principal and interest of KRW 188,200,000 borrowed money from the said Plaintiff as indicated in the instant report at KRW 270,000,000, and to pay it until October 12, 2015. As such, the Defendant, the deceased’s heir, is liable to pay the said money and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the obligation to pay money on each of the instant books was a condition precedenting the Deceased to borrow KRW 270,000,000 from H association. Since the Deceased did not receive a loan, the condition was not fulfilled due to the Deceased’s failure to do so, the Defendant did not claim that the obligation to pay money was not incurred.

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indication, and to the contract document.