1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 37,405,131 within the scope of the property inherited from the network B to the Plaintiff; and (b) on such KRW 37,405,131.

1. In full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the disposition, barring any special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense asserts to the purport that the sum of active properties inherited from the deceased is KRW 60,976,076. Of them, KRW 6,490,095, which is part of them, is suspended from payment as deposit claims. KRW 50,000,00, which is deposited by the lessor as deposit claims to return lease deposit claims, and the remainder of KRW 4,485,981 is paid to the creditors known to the defendant, and there is no inherited property to be paid to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case against the defendant should be dismissed.

On the other hand, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but merely limits the scope of liability. Thus, inasmuch as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized as the existence of an inherited obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation, the performance of the entire inherited obligation should be ordered. However, in order to restrict the executory power, the purport of the qualified acceptance of inheritance is clearly stated that the obligation can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance in order to limit the executory power.

In this case, as long as the Defendant was tried to approve the inheritance, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be ordered to perform the entire inheritance obligation within the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased. Even if there is no active property that the Defendant is practically able to dispose of as claimed by the Defendant, or such active property is insufficient to repay the inheritance obligation, the Plaintiff’s claim for the performance of the inheritance obligation is based on this.