A. As to Defendant A and C respectively KRW 7,728,293 and KRW 5,563,662 among them, from July 24, 2002 to December 24, 2004

A. Each fact described in the separate sheet of “the cause for claim” does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap 1-3 and Eul 1-3.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A and C are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff 1 7,728,293 won and 5,563,62 won per annum from July 24, 2002 to December 14, 2004; 18% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 20% per annum from the net H to the day of full payment; 3,728,293 won and 5,563,62 won per annum from the day following July 24, 2002 to December 14, 2004 to the day of full payment; 18% per annum from the 20.4% per annum from the day following the day of full payment to 204; 3.4% per annum from the 20% per annum to the day of full payment; 3.4% per annum from Defendant D’s property to the day of full payment to 20% per annum 14 to 27.5% per annum; 14 to 27.5% per annum

2. On the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the report of limited acceptance of inheritance was accepted, and that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed as there was no property inherited from the deceased H. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited to the scope of liability, not to limit the existence of the obligation, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited. Therefore, even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, insofar as the inheritance obligation is recognized as existing, the court as a matter of law does not have inherited property, or even if the inherited property is insufficient