In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above money, but there is no ground to recognize the joint and several liability relationship between the defendants, D, and E, and the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

2. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the instant claim against the Defendants was unlawful, since the Defendants did not have any property inherited from the deceased C, and the Defendants did not have any opportunity to waive inheritance only when the first-class inheritor renounced inheritance.

However, as the starting point of the period of consideration for renunciation of inheritance, the "date when the inheritance has become known" under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act refers to the date when he became an inheritor by knowing the cause of the commencement of inheritance. Therefore, the facts alleged by the Defendants alone are difficult to deem that the Defendants did not have any opportunity to waive inheritance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

In addition, as long as the Defendants were unable to know the fact that the inherited obligation exceeds inherited property by reason of refusal of inheritance or within the consideration period without gross negligence, and thus approved the succession limit pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.