1. The extent of the property inherited from the deceased A, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is 61,126,517 won and 14,568.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact-finding 1) An promoted mutual savings bank (hereinafter “promotion mutual savings bank”)

(1) The claim(hereinafter referred to as the "claim(s) of this case") is a loan(s) equivalent to the rate of 19% per annum for KRW 79,373,747 and KRW 33,94,014 from August 4, 2006 to the date of full payment(s) determined by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gada54779) with respect to the net A.

(2) On June 15, 201, the Plaintiff received the instant claim from an promoted mutual savings bank, and issued a notice of transfer around that time.

3) As of January 4, 2016, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant claims is KRW 142,628,541 (i.e., principal KRW 33,94,014 and interest KRW 108,634,527). (iv) The network A died on October 18, 2016. The Defendants, the heir of the network A, filed a declaration of qualified acceptance (Seoul Family Court 2017 Ma5091).

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 4, and the fact-finding results of this court's inquiry into the Deposit Insurance Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of the determination, the Defendants are obliged to pay each of the accrued principal and interest and damages for delay to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the network A, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that “No legitimate notice was given regarding the transfer of the instant claim.”

As seen earlier, the notice of the transfer of the instant claim was given. As long as the Defendants knew of the transfer of claims in the course of the instant lawsuit, it may be deemed that the notice of the transfer of claims was given. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that “the extinctive prescription for the instant claim has been completed” but according to each of the above evidence, there exists a final and conclusive judgment on the instant claim and from the date of final and conclusive judgment.