1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the defendant A's KRW 38,279,053 and KRW 21,789,566 among them, the defendant A shall be from May 1, 1998 to July 22, 1998.

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants as to the cause of the claim is identical to the entry of the cause of the claim in the attached Form. In full view of the entries of No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, this can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.

2. The above Defendants asserted that they were qualified acceptance in inheritance of the net F’s property. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the Defendants was partially repaid after the previous final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Gadan96251) and was brought for an extension of the extinctive prescription period. In the previous final and conclusive judgment, the judgment ordering the Defendants to pay “within the scope of the property inherited from the networkF” under the premise of qualified acceptance. The Plaintiff’s claim of this case also sought payment “within the scope of the property inherited from the networkF” and thus, the legal effect claimed by the Defendants was already reflected in this case.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion does not constitute a ground to block the plaintiff's claim of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.