A. Defendant B: 226,057,144 won and 83,780.

Each fact in the cause of the claim shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

On the other hand, after the death of G, the Defendants reported an inheritance-limited approval on February 24, 2005, and the above report was accepted on February 25, 2005, the following day may also be recognized as either there is no dispute between the parties or in light of the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, within the scope of the Plaintiff’s property inherited from G, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 12% from August 1, 2019 to the date of full payment. Defendant C, D, E, and F are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 150,704,762 won from August 1, 2019 to the date of full payment. Defendant C, D, E, and F are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 5,853,878 won from August 1, 2019 to the date of full payment.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the payment of the instant reimbursement amount as the Gwangju District Court heading 2006Kadan1795 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”)

The Defendants filed a lawsuit. On October 11, 2006, the Defendants did not assert the qualification of inheritance prior to the closing of argument in the fact-finding court, and the Defendants did not assert the qualification of inheritance, and the Defendants’ liability scope was declared and confirmed by a simple performance judgment, which was not limited to the scope of inherited property from G from the network G, and the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit in this case for the extension of extinctive prescription period. However, in the lawsuit against the inheritor who succeeded to the inheritee’s monetary obligation, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the obligee by seeking the performance of the inheritance obligation, but the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of adjudication, and thus, it does not affect the res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23138, Oct. 13, 2006). In light of this, the Defendants are not subject to res judicata effect.