1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The network B (hereinafter “the network”) deposited each money recorded in column of the balance sheet on each date indicated in the column of the attached Table 2 attached hereto as a fixed deposit with the Defendant, setting the respective interest rates indicated in the column of the same Table, and the same maturity date as the maturity date on each day indicated in the table column of the same Table.

B. As to the remaining balance after the maturity date of each of the above time deposits, the interest rate indicated in the column for the applicable interest rate under the attached Table 1 shall apply for the period from the beginning date to the ending date.

C. The deceased died on September 7, 2015, after the maturity date of each of the above time deposits, and succeeded to the deceased at the rate of 1/5 of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay interest calculated by each applicable rate to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party who inherited the deceased's right to time deposit against the defendant (=18,949,802 won ¡¿ 118,949,802 won x 1/5, and less than the original unit) and to each money listed in the balance sheet in attached Table 1 for each of the amounts listed in attached Table 1 column for the beginning of the interest calculation period of the same Table from each date indicated on the date to each date indicated on the end date.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed) asserts that since the Defendant did not notify or explain to the inheritor the interest rate under the terms and conditions applied after the maturity date, the initial agreement rate should be applied even after the maturity date.

However, the deceased’s successors comprehensively succeed to the rights of time deposit against the deceased’s Defendant, and the Defendant cannot be said to bear a separate duty of explanation on the applicable interest rate after maturity of time deposit. Therefore, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion.