1. The Defendants: (a) each of the KRW 10,235,309 and each of the KRW 5,023,02, within the scope of property inherited from the networkF to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the facts as shown in the separate sheet can be acknowledged. Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay the money as stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the inherited property from the deceased F.

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that they received an inheritance limited acceptance judgment. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but is merely limited to the scope of liability, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is deemed to exist even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. However, inasmuch as the obligor’s obligation is of a nature not to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify the purport that it can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the

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