1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 64,441,817 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B and KRW 19,982,490 among them.

Comprehensively taking account of each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the facts identical to the corresponding part among the grounds for the claim and the amended grounds for the claim, so the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on December 15, 2014 by accepting the Defendant’s defense of qualified acceptance, and the purport of the claim should be reduced into the scope of inherited property. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but limited to the scope of the liability. Thus, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even in cases where the existence of the obligation is recognized, it is recognized that the inheritance obligation exists, the court must render a judgment on the performance of the entire obligation, even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to pay the inherited property. However, since the obligation of the inheritor is of a nature not to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify the purport that the inheritance can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.