1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network D to the Plaintiff, the Defendant A 13,022,376 won, and the Defendant B and C 8,681.

1. The grounds for the claim shall be as specified in attached Form of the facts;

(However, “creditor” is deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “debtor” to be “Defendant. A payment order for obligor E is finalized, and a claim against Defendant E, one of the deceased’s successors, was withdrawn and terminated September 29, 2016. The Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in accordance with the outcome of the judgment on the qualified acceptance as to the defect of the defense that the Defendants received an adjudication on the qualified acceptance inherited by Changwon District Court 2007Ra-Ma41. The Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in accordance with the aforementioned judgment on the qualified acceptance as to the defect of the defense that the Defendants had received an adjudication on

2. According to the facts established above, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription as the period of ten years has elapsed since it was not repaid the final judgment against the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan296708, and the period of extinctive prescription has expired. As the deceased died on February 13, 2007, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, were adjudicated on qualified acceptance. As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay the same amount as the written order to the Plaintiff within the property scope inherited from the deceased.

3. The plaintiff's winning of the decision