2. The appeal costs.

A. On April 12, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with the deceased G to follow the agreed rate and delay damages rate as determined by the Plaintiff. Under the said credit transaction agreement, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 26,200,000 to the deceased G (hereinafter “instant loan”), and on May 20, 208, the remainder of the loan of this case as of May 20, 2008 is KRW 55,518,685 (= Principal KRW 26,200,000 and delay damages interest and KRW 29,318,685).

B. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the loan of this case against the deceased G as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan192661, and on July 24, 2008, the judgment of the court below that "the defendant (the deceased's name) shall pay to the plaintiff 5,518,685 won and 26,200,000 won with 19% interest per annum from May 21, 2008 to the day of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on August 21, 2008.

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

The deceased G was killed on October 22, 2015, and the heir was the deceased, and there was the deceased C, the defendant B, the appointee H, and the grandchild I (the heir is the heir due to the death of the deceased on July 30, 2012 by the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the heir), but among which the deceased on September 13, 2019, the deceased on September 13, 2019, which was the first instance judgment, the heir was the defendant D, E, and F.

In around 2016, the deceased C, the Defendant B, the Selection, and I reported the inheritance limited recognition as the District Court 2016-Ma129, and the above report was accepted on July 4, 2016 and finalized around that time.

E. Meanwhile, on May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription following the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the final judgment of the instant case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any other special circumstance, Defendant B, SH, and I are deceased upon the Plaintiff’s request for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the final judgment of this case.