1. Defendant B, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, 30,091,744 won and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied D's petroleum products from around 2005 to January 2015, and it is recognized that the present price for the goods unpaid was 30,091,744, and D's death on January 22, 2015 and succeeded to the property of defendant A and his children.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants, co-inheritors of the network D, are liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of 30,091,744 won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Defendants’ assertion, etc. asserted by the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was groundless since the Defendants filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance and a declaration of qualified acceptance after the death of the network D. Accordingly, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant A and C filed the respective declaration of renunciation of inheritance on March 17, 2015 and accepted on March 25, 2015 (Sacheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office A and C did not inherit obligations within the scope of inherited property.

[Qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but it is merely limited to the scope of liability. Thus, even in a case where a qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, even if there is no inherited property, the judgment of performance of the entire inherited obligation should be rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B is groundless upon the acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance of inheritance by Defendant B and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B is rejected. Accordingly, Defendant B is against the network D.