1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, Defendant B shall be limited to 60,857,142, Defendant C and D, respectively, 40.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary lending contract with the deceased to lend KRW 50 million to the deceased, and the deceased’s total principal and interest payment to the Plaintiff up to August 30, 2017.

B. On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff invested 50 million won to the Deceased by February 28, 2017, and the Deceased made an investment 10 million won to the Plaintiff by integrating the investment and dividend until August 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff drafted a 25% investment termination statement setting the damages for delay as 25% per annum.

C. At the time of the conclusion of each contract, the Plaintiff paid a loan or investment to the Deceased as agreed, but the Deceased did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff, out of the loan borrowed on December 12, 2016.

Defendant B is the deceased’s spouse, and Defendant C and D are the deceased’s children.

E. On January 3, 2018, the Defendants received a ruling of acceptance of the said declaration on January 24, 2018 upon filing a qualified acceptance report (Seoul Family Court Decision 2018No. 2018No. 2), and on February 7, 2018, partially revised the list of inherited property (Seoul Family Court Decision 2018No. 4).

[Ground] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 1 (including additional evidence), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Article 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, which is the legal ground for the simple approval of the judgment on the validity of qualified acceptance, provides that the phrase “when the qualified acceptance has not been entered in the inventory,” means that the inherited property is concealed in the qualified acceptance and the inherited property is not entered in the inventory with the intent to prejudice inheritance creditors by impairing the inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003; 2003Da58768, Mar. 12, 2004). The burden of proving intention lies on the part of the claimant who asserts it.

(Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51740 Decided May 26, 2005, etc.). Evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 1 evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 1 (including a serial number), and according to the purport of the whole pleadings, the deceased is a deceased.