1. The Defendants: 10,594,490 won each within the scope of property inherited from the networkF to the Plaintiff; and 4,109.

1. Each of the grounds for the claim indicated in the attached Form 1 of the judgment on the grounds of the claim and the facts that the Defendants succeeded to the rights and obligations relating to the assets of the networkF are not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized by the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the Defendants. Since the Busan Family Court reported the qualified acceptance on the assets of the networkF and accepted them on April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the deceased F’s heir, are liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum, calculated from September 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff the interest and interest of each loan (=52,972,452 won x 1/52 won per inheritance x 1/55) and each of them (=20,546 won per annum x 1/5).

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the claim in this case should be dismissed on July 12, 201, since the Defendants notified the Plaintiff to report the claim on July 12, 201 immediately after receiving the report on the qualified acceptance of the report on the qualified acceptance, and the Plaintiff did not secure the claim, such as failing to participate in the distribution procedure.

However, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the procedure for compulsory auction on inherited property to waive the instant claim. Since the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of the obligation, but merely limits the scope of liability, so long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even in a case where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, as long as there is an inherited obligation, the court is obliged to render a judgment on the performance of the entire inherited obligation, even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is

3. Conclusion against the Defendants.