1. In accordance with the correction and change of the Defendant’s indication at the Plaintiff’s trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 26, 2014, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff on June 11, 2010 entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Deceased; (b) paid KRW 4,231,423 on behalf of the Deceased totaling the principal and interest of the loans in arrears; and (c) paid KRW 193,120 to the Deceased in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the deceased; (d) the Plaintiff collected KRW 141,80, and paid KRW 4,282,743 [the principal and interest of subrogation: KRW 4,231,423 [the principal and interest of subrogation: KRW 51,320; KRW 193,120; KRW 141,80; KRW 241,400; and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 2841,274; and (e) the Defendants, who were coinheritors, paid the Defendants’ respective claims for reimbursement to the Deceased by 26141,27414,27 per annum.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the written evidence No. 2 and the purport of the argument, the Defendants filed a report on the renunciation of the deceased’s inheritance as the District Court Decision 2016Ra1391, and the said court may acknowledge the fact that the said report was accepted on February 8, 2017. As such, the Defendants did not separately succeed to the deceased’s obligation of indemnity against the Plaintiff by waiving the deceased’s respective inheritance. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, as it does not need further review the remainder of the argument.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants are without merit.