1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The underlying factual network C (Death on November 30, 2012) operated a fish network sales store in the name of D and traded with the Defendant before 2003. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiffs received KRW 18,241,860 from E, the wife of the network C, to the Defendant of the network C, who was solely inherited by E, and the notification of transfer of E reached the Defendant on October 18, 2013.

On the other hand, as of December 201, the deceased C prepared a book to the effect that the outstanding amount of KRW 18,241,860 against the Defendant remains (hereinafter “instant book”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 2 (including a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the net C had the outstanding amount of KRW 18,241,860 against the defendant based on the content of the pertinent account book, and that the defendant is obligated to pay the outstanding amount and damages for delay to the plaintiffs who have taken over the outstanding amount.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the outstanding amount claims were extinguished by the delivery of a promissory note around 2003, and agreed to repay the outstanding amount claims again due to the default of a promissory note issued.

Even if this claim is opened, five years of extinctive prescription is applied. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of five years from 2003, it is asserted that the claim of this case was already extinguished due to the completion of extinctive prescription before the lawsuit of this case is filed.

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties who received a promissory note in lieu of the repayment of the outstanding amount due until May 28, 2003 against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant separate bond”) and the parties who received the promissory note in lieu of the payment of the outstanding amount due (hereinafter “instant separate bond”). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap’s statement Nos. 6 and 8, and witness F’s testimony, upon the refusal of payment of the said promissory note, the deceased C and the Defendant had already been on August 28, 2003.