1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network D to the Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2006, an order for payment was issued to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2006, “D shall pay KRW 79,557,197 to the Plaintiff,” and the above order for payment was finalized on March 4, 2006.

(Fqjnjs 2006j416, hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). (b)

In the auction procedure of Busan District Court Branch E, Incheon District Court, Korea Mutual Savings Bank received a dividend of KRW 32,09,818 out of the bonds under the payment order of this case.

C. On February 16, 2016, Korea Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff the claim against the network D (No. 201 out of the list of transferred bonds).

The network D died on August 5, 2012, and there was Defendant A, Defendant B, and C, the wife, as the inheritor.

E. Defendant A was adjudicated on March 28, 2013 as the Incheon District Court 2013 Ma220, Defendant B as the Incheon District Court 2013 Madan195 on September 26, 2013, and Defendant C was tried on June 20, 2013 as the Incheon District Court 2013 MaMa1514 on the acceptance of a report on the approval of the succession limit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the network is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim, KRW 47,457,379 (= KRW 79,57,197 – KRW 32,09,818) upon the instant payment order. Defendant A, the heir of the network, inherited the above debt at the ratio of KRW 3/7 shares, Defendant B, and C’s 2/7 shares. As such, Defendant A, within the scope of property inherited from the network D, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount below KRW 20,338,876 (= KRW 47,457,379 + KRW 3/7,379 + KRW 3/7,00), Defendant B, and C, respectively, KRW 13,559,251 (= KRW 47,457,379 x less than KRW 2/7,00).

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.