1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Interest on the balance of loans extended to 1F Bank 8,696,744 20,941,4329,638,636, G ordinary loan 176 24,214,729,214,729,70,580,7128,7728,7528,80,000,000,000 G Credit Card Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. 28, 2005.6. 16,4,942,741,00,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000:

A. Nonparty E (hereinafter “the deceased”) received loans, etc. from the financial institutions as indicated below (hereinafter “creditor financial institutions”) on the date indicated in the agreed date column, and lost the benefit of time due to which it was not repaid. As of May 8, 2018, the obligation due to the deceased’s above loan (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”) is as follows.

B. The creditor financial institution transferred the above bonds to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Asset Transfer Agreement and Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the purport immediately after the transfer.

C. On March 28, 2014, the Deceased died, and the inheritance relationship of the Deceased is as indicated in the attached inheritance. The Defendants, the inheritor of the Deceased, filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the Suwon Family Court No. 2019-Ma214, and received the said report from the said court on March 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants asserts that the Defendants, as a substitute heir of collateral blood relatives within the fourth degree of the deceased, inherited the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable to pay the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Plaintiff according to the ratio of their respective shares of inheritance.

As recognized above, the Defendants renounced the inheritance of the deceased’s property, so the Defendants’ claim based on the premise that the Defendants are the deceased’s heir is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.