1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, Defendant B shall be limited to 21,428,571 won and Defendant C and D shall be limited to 14.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to the network E by means of frequently remitting money to Defendant B’s bank account and received interest of KRW 1,00,000 per month.

B. On March 1, 2017, E died, and Defendant C and D, the wife, succeeded to their property.

C. On July 7, 2017 and January 12, 2017, the Defendants were adjudicated by the Seoul Family Court on the approval of the inheritance limited period.

(2017 Raz. 3453, 2017 Raz. 4510). 【The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s No. 1, Eul’s No. 1, and Eul’s No. 2, a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, as the heir of the network E, are obligated to pay the money equivalent to their share of inheritance and its delay damages out of KRW 50,000,000 that the network E borrowed from the Plaintiff, within the scope of each inherited property as the heir of the network E.

Therefore, within the scope of each inherited property to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 16, 2017 to the day of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 14,285,714 (i.e., KRW 50,000 KRW x2/7, and fewer than KRW 50,000 KRW x2/7, and less than KRW) and each of the above amounts.

B. The plaintiff asserts that he is responsible for repaying the total amount of the loan because he borrowed money for a business operated jointly with Defendant B, or borrowed money necessary for daily home life.

However, in light of the existing partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and the network E, which can be identified by the purport of the entire argument of the instant case, Defendant B directly borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff only with the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 1 and the result of the Korean bank’s financial transaction information meeting.

In order for the deceased E to carry out a daily work with Defendant B.