A. Facts such as entry in the attached list;

B. After the receipt of the instant complaint, the Defendant knew of the deceased and the commencement of inheritance due to the death of the deceased Party B, and filed a petition for adjudication on the limited recognition of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court 2015-Ma6341, and the said court accepted a report on the limited recognition of inheritance on November 20, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 206,989,144 won and 162,689,666 won among them, 14% per annum from April 9, 2004 to July 8, 2004, 16% per annum from the next day to November 17, 2004, 12% per annum from the next day to June 24, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant asserts that there is no active property in the name of the deceased B, and therefore there is no obligation to pay money within the scope of the inherited property from the deceased B. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but merely limited to the scope of the liability. Thus, inasmuch as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to pay the inherited property, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inherited obligation. However, since the debt of the inheritor has the nature of not being able to enforce compulsory execution with respect to the inherent property of the inheritor, it must be clearly stated that the execution can be made only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the execution judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.