1. To the extent of the property inherited from the networkD to the Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant A shall be 21,938,490 won and this shall apply.

1. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is recognized that the facts are the same as the grounds for the attached claim and the amended grounds for the claim. Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the property inherited from D

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the grounds that the Defendants received an inheritance limited acceptance judgment, but the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of the obligation, but is merely limited to the scope of liability. Thus, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is deemed to exist even in a case where the existence of the inherited obligation is recognized, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire inherited obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation. However, inasmuch as the heir’s obligation has the nature of not being subject to compulsory execution with respect to the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify the purport that it can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the execution judgment to limit executory power.

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

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.