1. The plaintiff, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, the defendant A, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, and the defendant A, within the scope of 43,345,973 and 13,765.

Attached Form

The facts of the cause of the claim and the changed cause of the claim are without dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and Defendant B, and the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged between the Plaintiff and Defendant C as follows: (a) evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number).

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the money stated in the order to the Plaintiff. In particular, the Defendants are obliged to pay the money within the scope of each inherited property from the network D according to the qualified acceptance (the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to the effect that the Defendants received the qualified acceptance adjudication from the Daegu Family Court Decision 2014Ra235, Feb. 14, 2014). Accordingly, the Defendants protest against the statute of limitations.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3-3, evidence 4-7 and 8, the extinctive prescription can be determined by the Daegu District Court Decision 2006Na172445 decided March 21, 2007, Daegu District Court Order 208Hu10852 decided September 18, 2008, and the Seoul Central District Court Order 2012Hu134384 decided August 2, 2012 (Seoul District Court Order 203Hu1384 decided January 31, 2003).

However, inasmuch as the instant complaint was received on January 3, 2017, from each of the time when ten years have elapsed since the period of extinctive prescription became clear, the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted.

For this reason, all of the plaintiff's claims are accepted.