1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 122,715,00 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased A; and (b) as to the Plaintiff, on January 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased A (hereinafter “the Deceased”) requested the Plaintiff to act as an advertising agent for dental services operated by the deceased, and the Plaintiff performed the advertising agent services from June 2014 to May 2015. The Deceased did not pay KRW 122,715,000 to the Plaintiff during the said period.

B. On March 20, 2018, the Deceased died and was born by C and the Defendant as his/her inheritor. However, C filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance on April 24, 2018 and received a judgment on acceptance of the report on the renunciation of inheritance on April 24, 2018, by filing a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the High Government District Court Decision 2018Radan5555, and the Defendant filed a report on the refusal of inheritance on May 4, 2018, and received a judgment on acceptance of the report on the qualified acceptance of inheritance on May 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the inheritor of the deceased, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid advertising agency expenses of KRW 122,715,00,00 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 2, 2018 to September 12, 2018, which is the day following the day when the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim was served on July 26, 2018, as the date the judgment of this case was rendered, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless, but the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but limited to the scope of the liability, so long as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the whole of the inheritance obligation, as long as the inheritance obligation is deemed to exist even in the case where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized. However, in the case of the heir's proprietary property