1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case by the Plaintiff was unlawful since it violated the Plaintiff’s agreement on January 14, 201, and thus, it was unlawful. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful.

8) As examined in the second agreement of this case, the second agreement of this case and the delegation agreement of this case were automatically null and void and void if litigation is resumed (in the event that litigation is resumed, the second agreement of this case and the delegation agreement of this case were automatically null and void).

As the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case and the second agreement in this case became null and void, the defendants' main defense of safety is without merit, which is premised on the validity of the second agreement in this case.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, 12, and Eul evidence 5-1, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to H on April 15, 2005 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), ② the defendant Eul who is the spouse, 3/9, and the defendant C, D, and E, who are children, inherited the H's property at the rate of 2/9 of each of the above facts as he died on September 9, 2009.

B. Therefore, Defendant B, while Defendant C, D, and E, are obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 19, 2013 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, to Defendant C, D, and D, respectively (hereinafter the same shall apply), 22,222,222 won (i.e., KRW 100 million x 2/9) and Defendant B, C, and D, respectively, from March 24, 2013 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and from April 19, 2013 to the day of full payment.

According to Article 2(1) of the Addenda to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Etc., which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015 and enforced October 1, 2015, where the first instance court pleadings have been concluded as a case pending in the court at the time of the enforcement of the foregoing Decree, the foregoing provision is applicable to the case.