1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 21,099,648, respectively, to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from February 1, 2018 to July 15, 2019, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s mother E (hereinafter “the deceased”) filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, by deceiving the Deceased, caused the Deceased to cancel the insurance, and then, caused damage equivalent to the same amount to the Deceased due to the tort of personal consumption of full amount KRW 243,403,306 on the cancellation refund without the consent of the Deceased” under the Gwangju District Court 2016Gahap56177.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”). (b)

On May 11, 2017, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 243,403,306 to the Deceased and its delay damages,” by accepting the claim of the Deceased in full.

C. On July 7, 2017, the deceased, with the judgment of the above provisional execution sentence as the executive title, received a collection order for each claim attachment and collection from the Gwangju District Court 2017TTTT 10169 (F), and Gwangju District Court 2017TT 397 (Korea Asset Management Corporation: Third Obligor) on November 24, 2017.

After that, the Deceased received dividends from the sum of KRW 84,398,592 [the payment made around November 30, 2017) of KRW 38,441,782 [the payment made around January 31, 2018] in other distribution procedures on each of the above claims seizure and collection orders.

E. However, on June 27, 2018, when the previous appellate court following the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2017Na11994) had been pending in the lawsuit, the deceased died, and the Defendants, except the Plaintiff, taken over the lawsuit of the Deceased, and the said court reversed the judgment of the first instance and rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendants’ claims on April 26, 2019 on the grounds that “the lack of evidence to prove the Plaintiff’s deception or embezzlement is insufficient.” The said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch offices), the Gwangju District Court of this Court, the results of each fact-finding reply to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)execution by the judgment of the Pronouncement of Provisional Execution;