1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and D shall be either 50,400,377 won and its importance within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the “outstanding E” is deemed to be “the network E”; hereinafter the same shall apply). (b)

Judgment by Publication of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against Defendant B and D

A. Each fact in the separate sheet of the grounds for the claim is not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the whole purport of pleadings.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B and D are liable to pay to the Plaintiff 50,400,377 won each within the scope of the property inherited from the network E and delay damages for KRW 18,006,176.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B made a qualified acceptance on the inheritance of the property of the deceased E, and there is no active property inherited from the deceased E, and the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed without any repayment obligation. (ii) The qualified acceptance on inheritance does not limit the existence of the obligation, but merely limit the scope of liability, so long as the qualified acceptance on inheritance is recognized as having a liability even if the inheritance is recognized as having a qualified acceptance on inheritance, the court must render a judgment of performance on the whole of the inheritance obligation, as long as the inheritance does not exist or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property. However, in order to limit the executory power, Defendant B should clearly state the purport that the execution can be made only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Accordingly, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Accordingly, Defendant B and D shall each be limited to KRW 50,400,377, respectively, and KRW 18,006,176 among them, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, respectively.