1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 9 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that defendant B, C, D, and E inherited G due to the death of F.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to pay the amount stated in the claims to the plaintiff.

2. Determination on the defense of extinctive prescription and the second defense for the interruption of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations defense of the Plaintiff’s claim of each of the instant case was completed five years from the due date or ten years from the date when the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive, and thus, in full view of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed five years after the due date of each of the instant claim of this case or ten years after the date when the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive.

Therefore, each of the claims of this case was extinguished upon expiration of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.

B. On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of extinctive prescription had been interrupted by recognizing that Defendant A had remaining debt remaining at KRW 79,772,179 (principal principal KRW 22,858,121, interest 56,914,058) with partial repayment of the claim for each of the instant transfer money. Thus, according to the evidence No. 10, Defendant A’s statement, the Plaintiff’s agent, around September 30, 2010, Defendant A submitted the “request for debt readjustment and commitment (division agreement)” to the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2010, which approved that Defendant A’s agent had remaining debt amount at KRW 79,772,179, as of September 30, 2010. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above Plaintiff’s agent was the Plaintiff’s agent, but there is no ground to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s allegation is the Plaintiff’s agent.

3. Conclusion.