1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300,000 to the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”); (b) on March 7, 2014; and (c) on March 7, 2014, KRW 8,500,000, and KRW 20,000 on April 1, 2014; and (c) on March 7, 2014, the Deceased partially repaid KRW 300,000 among the loans.

The Plaintiff asserted in the warden that he lent KRW 25,00,000 to the Deceased on March 11, 2014. The Plaintiff was repaid KRW 25,00,000 on March 20, 2014, and was not included in the claim amount in the instant case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loans to the Deceased amounting to KRW 37,00,000 (i) KRW 8,800,000 as of March 7, 2014; ② KRW 8,200,000, excluding KRW 300,000 paid out of KRW 8,50,000 as of March 7, 2014; ③ KRW 20,000,00 as of April 1, 2014).

However, as the deceased died and the deceased’s wife D and E inherited the deceased, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,857,143, among the Plaintiff’s obligations against the deceased, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination 1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the arguments, the plaintiff loaned KRW 8,800,000 to the deceased on March 7, 2014, and KRW 20,000,000 on April 1, 2014 (the defendant alleged that the payment notice of KRW 20,000,000 on April 1, 2014 was made by settling the lending relationship. However, according to Gap evidence No. 4, the above payment notice merely borrowed the above amount of KRW 20,00,000, and KRW 30,000 on April 1, 2014, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent the above payment notice to the deceased on April 24, 2015, the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased's death exceeded the deceased's previous payment notice of KRW 30,000 on April 1, 201.