1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul District Court Decision 2003 Ghana1578533 against Nonparty C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 12, 2003, the Korean Financial System Specialized in Securitization Co., Ltd. received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the Seoul District Court 2003Gada1578533 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,927,755 and any delay damages therefrom” from the Seoul District Court Decision 2003Gada1578533, and the said decision was finalized on June 10, 2003.

B. The Defendant is the final transferee of the claim against C according to the instant performance recommendation decision.

C. C died on June 16, 2014, and the Defendant received an execution clause for succession to the Plaintiffs based on the instant performance recommendation decision. On November 24, 2014, the Gwangju District Court issued a seizure and collection order on the following grounds: (a) on November 24, 2014, the obligor was the Plaintiffs; and (b) the garnishee was the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Korea Bank, the Bank, the Bank, the Bank of Korea, the Gwangju Bank, the Bank, the Gwangju Agricultural Cooperative, and the Nam-ju Agricultural Cooperative.

On the other hand, on July 25, 2014, Plaintiff A was tried to grant inheritance limited recognition as the Gwangju Family Court 2014-Ma1255, and Plaintiff B was tried to waive inheritance as the Gwangju District Court 2014-Ma1254 on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the plaintiff A's claim, the plaintiff is responsible for the repayment of the debt to the defendant within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, and according to the whole purport of the statement and pleading in the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the deposit claim against the plaintiff A's third debtor stated in the attached Form No. 4 to which the defendant received the order of seizure and collection was the plaintiff's proprietary property. Therefore, the compulsory execution against each of the above deposit claims, which cannot be the defendant's own property, cannot be permitted due to the above inheritance limit approval, is excluded.