1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 33,50,741 and KRW 19,954,598 from September 9, 1982, and KRW 9,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against D, Defendant A, and the order (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the network E by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da297407. On April 1, 2005, the above court sentenced that “Korea Asset Management Corporation, D, the Deceased, and Defendant A jointly and severally with the Korea Asset Management Corporation, 32,259,70 won and KRW 19,954,598 out of KRW 32,954,598, respectively, and the amount of KRW 18% per annum from September 9, 1982 to the date of full payment from January 8, 1983, and jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, the deceased, Defendant A, and the deceased E shall pay KRW 1,241,041 per annum from January 8, 1983 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 2005.

B. The Deceased died on January 27, 2013, and the Defendant B succeeded to his/her property, and the Defendant B was tried to approve the inheritance of his/her property.

(In Mancheon District Court 2013 Radan1121). (c)

On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff is against the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

The claims described in the subsection were taken over.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendants jointly and severally filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the above judgment claim (= KRW 32,259,700, KRW 1,241,041) and 19,954,598 among them shall be paid 18% interest per annum from September 9, 1982 to the date of full payment, and 9,000,000 interest per annum from January 8, 1983 to the date of full payment, and Defendant B shall be liable to pay it within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased.

B. Defendant B’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because there is no property inherited from the deceased. However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of the obligation, but merely limit the scope of the liability. Thus, even where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the inheritance obligation exists.