1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to C (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. C was killed on December 2, 201, and there was D and E, who is the Defendant and his/her spouse, as his/her inheritor. However, D and E received a judgment on March 20, 2012 to the effect that “D and E shall accept the report of renunciation of inheritance” on March 20, 2012 after filing the report of renunciation of inheritance (Seoul Family Court Young-gu Family Court Young-gu Family Court Young-gu Branch Branch Decision 2012Ra19). The Defendant filed a report of the recognition of succession (Seoul Family Court Young-gu Branch Branch Decision 2012Mo21), and was tried on March 20, 2012 that “the Defendant shall accept the report of the qualified acceptance.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Network C, and C repaid the amount of KRW 10 million on March 15, 2004, and repaid KRW 1 million on May 2009.

C The other inheritors died and renounced inheritance, and the Defendant is deemed to have granted simple acceptance by omitting limited inherited property. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9 million (=20 million - 10 million - one million - one million) and damages for delay, excluding the money paid out of the instant money.

Before C’s death, following the death of C, the Defendant approved the obligation of borrowed money around July 2012, around October 2012, and around June 2013, and the first instance court’s first instance court recognized the obligation, which constitutes the acceptance of the obligation, and thus, the extinctive prescription was suspended unless the requirements for revocation of confession are satisfied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that C did not borrow the instant money from the Plaintiff, and all of the loaned facts have been repaid, the extinctive prescription has expired, and the qualified acceptance has been made even if it is not so, C is obligated to repay only within the scope of C’s inherited property.

3. Determination

(a)transfer money to another person’s deposit account, one decision on whether to recognize the fact of lending;