1. The Defendants are within the scope of property inherited from the deceased B and the deceased C, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant (Appointed Party A), A.

1. The facts of recognition are as shown in the annexed sheet of claims and the changed causes of claims;

(However, the following facts are added). The network B, and C, as described in the separate sheet, bear the obligation against each Plaintiff, as stated in the “the cause of the change”. However, upon the death of B and C, the above Defendant (Appointed Party) inherited the obligation, and the above Defendant (Appointed Party) filed a report on the qualified acceptance with the Daejeon Family Court on December 3, 2014, the fact that the said Defendant (Appointed Party) filed a report on the qualified acceptance with the Daejeon Family Court on December 3, 2014 and received the adjudication on qualified acceptance from the Daejeon Family Court. As such, the above Defendant (Appointed Party), D, E, F, G, H, and I are liable for the performance of the obligation inherited from the network B and C within the scope of property inherited from the network B and C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserted that the plaintiff's claim has expired, but according to the evidence mentioned above, the limited liability company specialized in the Hanmanae-backed securitization filed a lawsuit against the network B and C, and won the judgment on September 18, 2002. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the Kanyang mutual savings bank was 208.

5. Since it can be recognized that the deceased B received a collection order for the seizure and collection, the above assertion is without merit.