1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 140,988,075 and its total amount of KRW 88,210,346:

B. The defendant A is jointly and severally liable with the defendant.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and D

(a) Description of claims: To describe the cause of claims and the changed cause of claims as shown in the annex;

(b) Defendant A: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant D: Judgment of deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 8 as to the claims against Defendant B and C, Defendant B and C are liable to pay the money claimed within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, since the same facts are acknowledged as the cause of the claim and the changed cause of the claim.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted by the aforementioned Defendants’ qualified acceptance defense and reduced the scope of inherited property. However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but is merely limited to the scope of liability. Thus, if a qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even if the existence of an obligation exists, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire obligation, even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. However, it is sufficient to specify the purport that the heir’s obligation can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the performance judgment in order to restrict executory power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion is without merit.