1. The Plaintiff, and the Defendant C Co., Ltd.: 54,215,670 won and 53,183,690 won among them, from January 29, 2010 to 959.

1. The facts of the Attached Form of Claim concerning the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number). Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff the money set forth in Section 1 of the Disposition.

2. As to Defendant D’s assertion, Defendant D asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that the property inherited by the deceased F is not remaining after all the property was used in repayment of the obligation.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 to 5 of Eul, as long as it is recognized that the deceased F's inherited property was all of the debt repayment, but the limitation on the inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but limited to the scope of the liability, so long as it is recognized that the inheritance limited approval exists even if the inheritance limited approval is granted, the court has no inherited property or it is insufficient for the court to pay the inherited obligation.

Even if a judgment is rendered on the performance of the entire inheritance obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003, etc.), the above assertion by Defendant D is without merit (Provided, That this circumstance was considered to have been already known through a similar case lawsuit, and the litigation cost shall be borne individually by the Plaintiff and the above Defendant). 3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified.