1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, B, and C are either KRW 32,152,218 and their importance within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

(a) Indication of claims: To describe the grounds for claims and the changed grounds for claims as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant A, B, and C

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is recognized that the same facts are identical to the entries in the grounds for the attachment and the changed grounds for the claim. Accordingly, Defendant A, B, and C are liable to pay the money as stated in the claims within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased

(1) The plaintiff accepted the defendants' qualified acceptance defense and reduced the claim into the scope of inherited property).

Although the above Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that they received an inheritance limited acceptance judgment, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but merely limit the scope of liability. Thus, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even in cases where a qualified acceptance of inheritance exists, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire obligation, even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited property, and the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire obligation. However, in order to limit the executory power, it is sufficient to clearly state that the Plaintiff’s claim can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion is without merit.