2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that the defendant was tried to approve the inheritance limit of the deceased B, and since the small property of the above deceased exceeds the active property, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is without merit in its entirety.

On the other hand, 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 as the existence of an inherited obligation even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of all the inherited obligation even if the inherited property does not exist or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation. However, since the obligation of an inheritor is of a nature not to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of an inheritor, the court shall specify the purport that it can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's claim has already restricted its executive force to "within the scope of property inherited from the deceased B" as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1. Thus, the above defendant's claim is without merit without any further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.