In other words, the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gaso2108689 claim against Defendant A was finalized on December 7, 2005, and the Defendant A’s debt due to the decision of performance recommendation remains as stated in Section 1 of the Disposition.

Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay the same money as that stated in Section 1 of the Disposition to the Plaintiff.

2. The following facts regarding the claim against Defendant B are acknowledged by the parties to the dispute or by the purport of the entire pleadings, Gap 1 to 3, Eul 1, and the whole pleadings.

In other words, on March 28, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2005da2108689 claims against the Plaintiff’s deceased C (Death on March 22, 2009) rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on March 28, 2006, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Although the obligation of the network C by the final and conclusive judgment remains as the same as that of the Disposition No. 1, the Defendant B, the heir of the network C, received a report of inheritance recognition as the Seoul Family Court 2015Ma7387 on September 17, 2015, Defendant B, the heir of the network C, was finally final and conclusive around that time.

Therefore, Defendant B, the heir of the network C, is jointly and severally liable to pay the same money as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B’s report on the inheritance limited acceptance was accepted. As such, the Plaintiff is only entitled to compulsory execution against Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B only for the property inherited from Defendant B A’s network C.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted in entirety.