1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit which have arisen after the appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

3. The first instance.

1. In fact, the bankruptcy trustee of the Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company, Inc., the bankruptcy debtor, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, filed a lawsuit against C on the loan claim of Suwon District Court 2006Gapo 157703, and the above court decided on October 31, 2006 that "C shall pay 30% interest per annum from May 10, 2006 to the bankruptcy trustee of the Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company, the bankruptcy debtor, the bankruptcy debtor, and 1,063,752 interest per annum from May 10, 2006 to the date of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on November 23, 2006.

On September 4, 2008, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in bankruptcy of the Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company Co., Ltd. transferred a claim based on the above judgment to the Plaintiff (former Mutual Savings and Finance Corporation, Ltd.). The Plaintiff submitted a written notice of assignment to the Defendants in this case and delivered it to the Defendants during the first instance trial.

C A. On May 30, 2007, the Defendants, as C’s children, filed a special inheritance limited recognition report with the Cheongju District Court 2018 Madan41, and the said court rendered a judgment on January 23, 2018 to accept the said report.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, the heir of the deceased C, are obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum from May 10, 2006 to the day of full payment to the day of full payment of 1,216,465 won (=2,432,931 won x 1/2 of the shares in inheritance x less than KRW 1/2 of the shares in inheritance) and 531,876 won among them (=1,063,752 won x 1/2 of the shares in inheritance x 1/2 of the shares in inheritance).

3. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, since the Defendants’ determination on the Defendants’ assertion was based on the inheritance-limited recognition. However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not deny the existence of an obligation itself, but limited the scope of liability.