1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the defendant A 50,199,454 won and 24,485,302 won among them:

B. The network is jointly and severally with Defendant A.

Attached Form

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified because there is no dispute between the parties as to the cause of the claim and the facts stated in the changed cause of claim.

[Defendant (Appointed Party) asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed since the inheritance limited acceptance was made. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but is merely limited to the scope of liability, so long as the inheritance liability exists even if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized as a qualified acceptance of inheritance, 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. However, since the obligor’s obligation has the nature of not being subject to compulsory execution with respect to the inherent property of the inheritor, it should be clearly stated that it can be executed only within the extent of the inherited property in the text of the performance judgment to limit the executory power (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003).