A. Within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased H, (1) Defendant A is 44,55,456 won and its importance.

A. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers), and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the following facts are acknowledged: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20090, Dec. 23, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20688, Feb. 13, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20687, Mar. 16, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 20687, Dec. 23, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20680, Feb. 13, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20720, Mar. 16, 2017>

According to the above facts, Defendant A, B, E, F, and G are obligated to pay each of the money set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased H, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased I.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since they received a qualified acceptance judgment.

However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of liability, so long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. Provided, That in order to restrict the executory power, the court must clearly state the purport that the obligation can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance, in order to limit the executory power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003, etc.).