A. As to Defendant A and Defendant C’s joint and several KRW 136,107,572 and KRW 16,972,006 among them:

B. Defendant D.

2. Judgment by public notice against Defendant A, D, or G (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. The above Defendants were present on the date of the first pleading of the instant case, and acknowledged the facts constituting the cause of the instant claim, but stated that they failed to repay obligations due to lack of ability to repay.

4. There is no clear dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant E concerning each of the facts stated in the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet against Defendant E.

According to the above facts, Defendant E, as the inheritor of the deceased H, is obligated to perform the deceased’s obligation to the Plaintiff according to his share of inheritance.

In this regard, Defendant E argues that he was subject to a qualified acceptance trial on the deceased’s inheritance, and on this ground, he seems to be unable to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, 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 even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. Provided, That in order to restrict the executory power, the court must clearly state the purport that the obligation can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance in order to limit the executory power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 Decided November 14, 2003, etc.). In light of the above legal principle and the fact that the Plaintiff sought performance of the inheritance obligation according to the inherited property from Defendant E within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, Defendant E’s above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the Seoul Central District Court 2006da57511.