A. Defendant B’s KRW 34,962,650 as well as 6% per annum from January 12, 2017 to May 4, 2017.

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “F”. The Plaintiff supplied goods to the network E, a personal entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of the kinds of food, with the trade name of “G”.

The amount of goods unpaid by the network E is KRW 81,579,517.

B. The deceased E died on January 11, 2017, and his heir is the Defendant B and his children, the wife, and there is D with the Defendant C.

C. On March 8, 2017, the Defendants reported the qualified acceptance (or Gwangju Family Court 2017 Down-do 386), and on March 28, 2017, the said qualified acceptance report was accepted.

(Ground for recognition) Facts that there is no dispute, Eul's statement of No. 1, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendants, the heir of the network E, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid goods price according to the percentage of their inheritance shares. (2) However, the Defendants are deemed to have made a qualified acceptance, on February 14, 2017, prior to the filing of the qualified acceptance report by Defendant B’s transfer of part of the inherited property to H, and thus are deemed to have made a simple acceptance of inheritance.

Defendant B should be deemed to have performed a disposal act with the implied consent from Defendant D or C or with the granting of disposal authority. As such, the effect of the disposal of the above inherited property extends to Defendant D and C.

B. Defendants 1) As the Defendants reported the qualified acceptance, they are liable to repay their debts only within the scope of the property inherited from the network E. Defendant B did not have disposed of the inherited property.

H has supplied goods to the network E, so it would return the goods or return the goods, and it would return the goods supplied by it, and as well as H, it would bring about the claim that the creditors of the network E were the goods supplied by them.

3 Even if Defendant B disposed of inherited property, Defendant C and D did not agree thereto, and in particular Defendant C did not agree thereto.