1. Of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A, the part regarding the new card, Samsung fire, and the primary securitization of the clinic.

1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. The claim regarding the part related to the new card, Samsung Fire, and the department specializing in the primary securitization of the clinic shall be dismissed on or around 2011 as there is no interest in the lawsuit in the payment order finalized around 2011 and the performance recommendation decision.

Defendant A asserted the expiration of the extinctive prescription period in relation to the claim against TNN Loan and Samsung Card Co., Ltd., but according to the evidence No. 11-4 and evidence No. 11-6, the part on TNN loan becomes final and conclusive on December 25, 2005 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gaso2192134), and the part on Samsung Card was final and conclusive on April 11, 2004 (Seoul Central District Court 2004Daso2659), and since the lawsuit in this case was filed on January 22, 2014, the payment order was finalized on April 11, 2004 (Seoul Central District Court 2004Daso2659). Accordingly, the above argument was rejected on March 3, 2006.

A. Defendant B and Appointors denied the fact of joint and several guarantee by the networkF, but according to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Gap evidence No. 10, the certificate of the personal seal impression and the copy of the resident registration certificate at the time of joint and several guarantee was submitted, and at the time, it is recognized that the creditor financial institutions in currency with the network F and confirmed the intention of guarantee, the above assertion is rejected.

Defendant B and the designated parties asserted the expiration of the statute of limitations, but in light of the fact that the interruption of the statute of limitations against the principal debtor takes effect against the guarantor, the interruption of the statute of limitations against the principal debtor against the defendant A on August 31, 2006, which is the principal debtor, is the seizure and collection order (the submission of the application on August 29, 2006, 2006, 3191, 2006, 3191, 2006, 3191, 206) and the payment order on April 13, 2011 (the submission of the application for the order for payment order issued on April 13, 2011, it is not acceptable to accept the above assertion.

The plaintiff asserts that the inheritance shares of the defendant B and the designated parties are 1/5 each, but according to the evidence No. 1 of Eul, the deceased F is the heir of the networkF, in addition to the defendants and the designated parties, G.