The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff with Codefendant F of the first instance trial.

A. The 1) The Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (the trade name was “stock company future mutual savings bank,” and the trade name was changed on September 30, 2010.

The Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank of Korea").

A on September 20, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment on December 26, 2006 after serving the deceased and the co-defendant F of the first instance trial a notice of the date of pleading, etc., by means of public notice, on the part of the deceased and the co-defendant F. The judgment became formally final and conclusive on January 26, 2007.

The judgment of the first instance is not written in accordance with the Trial of Small Claims Act.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s future savings bank was declared bankrupt (Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap54), and the Plaintiff appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy took over the status of the future savings bank in litigation.

C. (1) The Deceased died on June 4, 2012. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants, the heir of the Deceased, to grant grant of the succeeding execution clause on September 21, 2015. (2) The Defendants submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on October 1, 2015, where the Defendants were to receive a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause on September 24, 2015, and the record of the first instance trial was destroyed after the lapse of the preservation period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) through 4, evidence Nos. 7 through 9, obvious facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If a copy of the complaint, the original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal of this case were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where he was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, the reason ceases to exist for two weeks thereafter.