1. On the judgment in the case of the Seoul Southern District Court 201Kahap307 claim for inheritance recovery between the defendant and the deceased D.

1. Basic facts

A. The network E and network D (hereinafter “the deceased”) were married couple on July 29, 1959, and the Defendant, the son and female A, the son and female F, and the son and son B.

The deceased E died on January 29, 2007, and the Deceased on March 22, 2016.

B. On January 6, 2011, the Defendant asserted that the deposit account in the deceased’s name is the borrowed name account in the network E, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s share of inheritance out of the deposit balance in the above borrowed name account, and filed a lawsuit of inheritance recovery against the deceased, etc. (Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap307). On November 15, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced by the above court that “the deceased shall pay the Defendant 417,952,998 won, and its interest to the Defendant from January 29, 207 to January 28, 201, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the part on the deceased was finalized as is (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

C. On May 7, 2019, the Defendant received a succession execution clause based on the instant judgment in order to enforce compulsory execution against the Plaintiffs (per one-fourths of shares in inheritance) who are successors to the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased had no knowledge and mental capacity in around 2006, and had been diagnosed by dementia in around 201. The Defendant, on May 13, 201, forced the deceased to manage the deceased’s property until the deceased’s death, and attempted to enforce compulsory execution against the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of the deceased, by obtaining an execution clause to succeed to the instant judgment, even though he/she received full repayment of the principal and interest of the instant judgment from the deceased, while he/she forced the deceased to do so. The Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant judgment against the Plaintiffs should be denied.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 8-3, 199, 201.