1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. and C jointly and severally for KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 36,361,698 among them.

1. Claim against Defendant A, C, and E

(a) Indication of claims: To describe the reasons for the application and the changed reasons for the application; and

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. On January 29, 2004, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against F to demand the transfer of a claim against F, and sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Gahap8581 that “F shall pay KRW 17,473,584 jointly with A Co., Ltd. and C.)” (2) The Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred the claim under paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff on September 18, 2012, and the Plaintiff granted the power to notify the transfer of a claim from the Korea Asset Management Corporation. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff notified A Co., Ltd., a principal debtor of the claim under paragraph (1) as a certificate of the transfer of a claim.

3) Meanwhile, on May 11, 2011, F died, and C, the spouse of H, children, D, E, I, and J inherited F’s property. 4) On July 14, 2011, F was subject to the adjudication on the renunciation of the deceased F’s inherited property under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 201Mo562, Incheon District Court Branch Decision 201Mo562, and Defendant D was subject to the adjudication on the qualified acceptance of the deceased F’s inherited property under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2011Mo561 on August 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-3, and Evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 3,030,730,730 (=13,638,302 x 2/9, and less than KRW 2/9) which is the share of inheritance for KRW 13,638,302, which is the share of inheritance for KRW 17,473,584, within the scope of property inherited from the network F.

On the other hand, Defendant D alleged that he renounced the net F’s inherited property, and thus, Defendant D, as seen earlier, did not waive the net F’s inherited property, but obtained the inheritance-limited approval. Therefore, Defendant F’s above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified.