1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 12,857,142, Defendant C, and D respectively, and each of the said money from September 24, 2009.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On May 2, 2009, Nonparty E made a letter of payment to the effect that it would borrow money from the Plaintiff, and that it would repay 30 million won to the Plaintiff by September 23, 2009.

[The defendant did not have any financial data to verify that he borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the fact that he borrowed money or written a written request for payment is not necessarily recognized by the financial data and the certificate on which the seal imprint is affixed, although the defendant did not have any financial data to confirm that he borrowed money from the plaintiff, the fact that he borrowed money or written a written request for payment is not necessarily recognized by the financial data and the certificate on which the seal imprint is affixed, and in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser F's written appraisal, the fact that he written a written request for payment (Evidence No. 1) can be recognized. (2) The non-party E died on April 19, 2012. The defendant Eul's wife, the defendant C, and D are the deceased's children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, as the inheritors of the Deceased, are obligated to pay the amount of loans pursuant to their respective shares of inheritance (for Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, each 2/7) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 24, 2009 to April 25, 2013, which is the day following the due date for payment, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The defendants' defense (1) even if the deceased borrowed money from the plaintiff, it is invalid since it borrows money from the plaintiff for the purpose of a bribe (which means a bribe to be offered to the defendant B's company). It is a juristic act contrary to good customs and other social order.

(2) The statement of payment under the deceased’s name (Evidence A (Evidence 1) is prepared by the Plaintiff’s coercion and thus may be invalidated or cancelled.

(3) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the deceased borrowed money from the Plaintiff by making a false statement, and the Plaintiff on September 2009.