1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C is within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, (1) KRW 13,484,554, and 5.2

1. Each Plaintiff’s assertion in the separate sheet of claim and the changed cause of claim are without dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, and it is deemed that the said Defendants led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant B and D.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay each of the money stated in the order to the Plaintiff as the assignee of the claim.

2. Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that there is no property inherited while protesting against the acceptance of succession limit. However, inasmuch as the inheritance liability is recognized even in cases where the qualified acceptance of succession is recognized, as long as there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property, the court shall render a judgment on performance of the entire inheritance obligation. However, since the relevant obligation has a character not to enforce compulsory execution against the inheritor’s proprietary property, it is only necessary to specify the purport that the execution can be made only within the extent of the inherited property in the text of the performance judgment to restrict executory power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified and acceptable.