1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant E jointly and severally KRW 332,788,792 and KRW 104,111,147.

1. The facts in the separate sheet on the grounds of the claim (However, with respect to Defendant J, the withdrawal of the lawsuit was terminated on August 19, 2015) are acknowledged by the respective descriptions between the Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant H, and the remaining Defendants, and are deemed to have been led to confessions by the Defendants’ failure to clearly dispute them.

On the other hand, as of August 21, 2012, among the legal successors, Defendant D, who died on his/her death on August 21, 2012, was adjudicated on November 30, 2012 to accept the notification of the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012Ra7950 decided September 12, 201, and on November 30, 2012, K, L, and M filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012Ra8031 as of September 13, 2012, and N was adjudicated to accept it on November 16, 2012, by filing a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012Ra8352 as of September 25, 2012, and received the adjudication on December 21, 2012 between the Plaintiff and Defendant D.

Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay the money to the plaintiff as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

2. Defendant D’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendant should be dismissed as there is no active property inherited from the network I.

On the other hand, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the scope of the existence of the obligation, but limited to the liability merely, so even if there is a qualified acceptance of inheritance, if there is a qualified acceptance of inheritance, the inheritor succeeds to the entire obligation of the inheritee within the limit of the inherited property. However, the inheritor's proprietary property is liable for the inherited obligation only within the limit of the inherited property.

Therefore, as alleged in the above defendant, the deceased's property does not remain remaining.

However, as recognized earlier, insofar as the existence of the present obligation against the deceased is recognized.