1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant is serious.

1. We examine ex officio the legal nature of the claim for loans that are taken over by the five-dong community credit cooperatives.

The plaintiff is seeking against the defendant, who is the heir of the network B, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the defendant's inheritance shares among the loan claims of December 14, 2001 against the network B acquired from the five-dong community credit cooperatives per annum.

According to the purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 3-2 and evidence Nos. 5 of evidence Nos. 2 and 2 and 5 of evidence Nos. 2 and the whole arguments, the Dong 5-dong community credit cooperatives filed an application for the payment order (hereinafter “the first payment order of this case”) with the net B around December 14, 2001 for the payment of loans ( principal amounting to KRW 5 million, interest rate of KRW 15% per annum, interest rate of delay damages rate of KRW 19% per annum, 19% per annum; hereinafter “the loan claim of this case”) against the net B around November 21, 2007. The plaintiff received the payment order of this case from the Dong 5-dong community credit cooperatives with the annual payment order of KRW 9,753,253 and KRW 5 million from the annual payment order of the loan of this case from 150% until 207. 16. 205% of the loan of this case.

Meanwhile, according to the records of this case, on November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a payment order claiming payment of the amount of KRW 8,257,910 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 3,257,910) on the instant loan claim with the Busan District Court Branch (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 5 million) and KRW 5 million from November 20, 2014 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the second payment order of this case”). The above court filed a payment order claiming payment of delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 17% per annum from November 20, 2014 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the second payment order of this case”). The above court was unable to serve the original copy of the second payment order of this case without service by public notice with the network B, and it was in accordance with Article 466(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.