1. Within the scope of the property inherited from each network E (F) to the Plaintiff, Defendant B to the Plaintiff, Defendant D and C to the extent that the property is inherited.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments described in Gap 1-1-1-3 (a), 5, 6, 7-1, 7-2, and Eul 1’s respective statements and arguments as to the cause of the claim, Eul operated the business of repairing and selling used sports equipment at H in Nam-si, Nam-si, the trade name of "G". However, the plaintiff determined KRW 10,51 million on October 6, 2014 to be KRW 8% per annum until December 6, 2014; ② the amount of KRW 2,010,000 on October 6, 2014; the annual interest rate of KRW 8% per annum; ③ the amount of KRW 1,51 million on December 6, 2014; and ③ the amount of KRW 2,010,000 on December 6, 2014; and ③ the amount of KRW 15,2015 on May 26, 2015.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay 18,942,857 won (i.e., a total of 44,200,000 won x statutory inheritance 3/7,000 x less than KRW 3/7,000; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant C and D respectively 12,628,571 won (=a total of 4,420,00 won x statutory inheritance 2/7), and damages for delay.

The Defendants’ defenses against the Defendants are defenses that the qualified acceptance was made on E’s property inheritance. Accordingly, according to the records of E, the Defendants, as Seoul Family Court Decision 2015Ra3371, reported the qualified acceptance on E’s property inheritance, and on June 25, 2015, can be acknowledged that the Defendants reported the qualified acceptance on E’s property inheritance, and that they received the said report on the qualified acceptance on June 25, 2015, the aforementioned defense is reasonable.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, to the extent of the property inherited from each network E, Defendant B, Defendant D, and C, each of the above amounts of KRW 12,628,57, and each of the above amounts of KRW 12,571, as requested by the Plaintiff after the due date, shall be subject to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendants’ performance obligations from August 28, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff.