1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 32,946,530 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B; and (b) on June 2015.

1. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, it is recognized that the facts are the same as the reasons for the attached claim and the changed reasons for the claim. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money as stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the property inherited from

(2) The plaintiff accepted the defendant's defense of qualified acceptance and reduced the purport of the claim into the scope of inherited property. 2. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because the defendant received an inheritance limited acceptance judgment. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, it is merely limited to the scope of liability. Thus, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation, the court shall render a judgment of performance of the entire inherited obligation. However, since the debt of the inheritor has the nature of not being able to enforce compulsory execution as to the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify that it can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the execution judgment to limit executory power.

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

3. Accordingly, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.