1. The part of the instant lawsuit against the Appointor D shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party E.

1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Selection E, and F are the successors of deceased G on December 18, 2018, and the Selection D is the former wife of the deceased.

B. Around November 21, 2000, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Heg G seeking payment of the credit card price jointly and severally guaranteed by the Deceased under the Government Branch of the Seoul District Court 2000Kadan15852, and won the judgment on November 21, 200, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 9, 200.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”) 2. Determination of the eligibility of the party: The party entitled to file a lawsuit of demurrer to the Appointor D is the person who is indicated as the debtor in the title of execution, his successor, or other causes, and is entitled to the executory power on his behalf.

(See Article 25 of the Civil Execution Act). In this case, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) filed a lawsuit on the premise that both the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are the deceased G’s successors.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Appointor D filed a divorce report on January 20, 199, prior to the death of the deceased on January 20, 199, and it does not correspond to the deceased’s heir, and otherwise, that the Appointor D is in a position to be executory of the judgment of this case

Therefore, the part on the designated party D among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. The judgment on the merits: Ten years for the extinctive prescription of claims established by the judgment of the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party E, or F, and the extinctive prescription shall run from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(Article 165(1) and Article 178 of the Civil Act). Claims against the Defendant’s net G, which caused the instant judgment, were extinguished by the completion of prescription on December 9, 2010 after the lapse of ten years from December 9, 200, when the instant judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case is not permissible.

4. The conclusion is that the part of the lawsuit in this case against the Appointor D is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed, and the remaining claims are justified.