(1) Defendant B’s KRW 43,916,43 and KRW 17,265,265.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The reasoning for this part of the court’s judgment regarding the statute of limitations defense is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the paragraph, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. (1) On December 18, 2015, the Defendants (excluding Defendant B; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) filed a report on the qualified acceptance of the Defendants’ claim (hereinafter “instant report on qualified acceptance”) with the Gwangju Family Court support 2015 Madan327, which was subsequent to the Plaintiff K (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the fact that the said report was accepted on February 2, 2016 can be recognized by taking into account no dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 18, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff money within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased.

(2) On the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the agenda of simple approval, the Plaintiff asserts that even if the shares of the deceased’s L K5 passenger car (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”) were held in title by Defendant I, the ownership is externally transferred to the title trustee. The Defendants asserted that, prior to the instant report on the qualified acceptance, the Plaintiff’s share of the deceased was inherited by Defendant I solely by the inheritance of the deceased and the disposal of inherited property by the agreement on the division of inherited property, the validity of the instant report on the qualified acceptance cannot be recognized.

On the other hand, the basic of the trust contract for the establishment of the title trust relationship is the ownership of the object in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee.