The facts stated in the cause of the claim and the changed cause of the claim are either not disputed between the parties or acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole (However, the plaintiff amended the purport of the claim through an application for modification of the purport of the claim made on September 17, 2014, and withdrawn the lawsuit against the defendant C). Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because the defendant did not dispute each of the facts stated in the annexed cause of the claim itself but did not approve the inheritance of the deceased B's obligation, so the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not merely limit the existence of the obligation, but it is merely limited to the scope of the liability. Thus, even if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court should decide on the whole performance of the inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to satisfy the inherited property's inherent property, and therefore, the defendant's claim that the above defendant's execution of the inherited property can not be subject to compulsory execution within the extent of 1301,00,000 won.

Therefore, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B, the defendant bears the same obligation as that stated in paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.