1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 115,610,807 and KRW 50 million from July 7, 2004 to November 19, 2004.

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

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

(b) Judgment on deeming confessions (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim against Defendant D, the facts identical to the corresponding part of the grounds for the claim can be acknowledged. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the money as stated in the claim within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

(3) If a qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, a qualified acceptance defense by the Defendant is accepted, and the purport of the claim is reduced to the extent of the inherited property. Defendant D argues that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on account of the inheritance limited acceptance judgment. However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but merely limited to the scope of the liability. Thus, if a qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inherited obligation. However, inasmuch as the obligation of the inheritor has the nature of not being able to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify that it can be executed only within the extent of the inherited property in the text of the execution judgment to

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