1. The extent of the property inherited from C to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant (Appointed Party) shall be KRW 13,607,142, b.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 18, 2012 to March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,1750,000 to C.

B. C On April 18, 2013, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) succeeded to C’s rights and duties at the ratio of 2/7 of each of the following: (a) the designated parties; (b) D and E (hereinafter “designated parties”) died; and (c) the Defendant succeeded to C’s rights and duties at the ratio of 3/7.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Assertion and determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as to the Plaintiff’s claim, C’s debt 3,1750,000 won owed to the Plaintiff was inherited according to the inheritance shares.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,607,142 (=31,750,000 x less than KRW 3/7,00; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the designated parties are each KRW 9,071,428 (=31,750,000 x 2/7) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion and the designated parties filed a report on the recognition of succession limit. Thus, the defendant's assertion and the designated parties are obligated to pay the plaintiff's obligation only within the scope of the property list attached to the report on the approval of succession limit.

B) The Plaintiff’s assertion C sold a vehicle to the Defendant on March 21, 2013, while exceeding the obligation, and the Defendant knowingly purchased the vehicle with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. This constitutes “an act which does not enter the inherited property in the inventory,” and thus constitutes a ground for statutory simple acceptance. Therefore, the effect of limited inheritance does not take effect. Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant and the designated parties received the said court’s ruling to accept the report (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on May 31, 2013 by filing a report on the recognition of succession with the Chuncheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2013Ra177.

On the other hand, even if a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act is filed, it is still valid until the judgment of revocation becomes final and conclusive.

On the other hand, a qualified acceptance report.