1. Within the scope of each inherited property from the network D, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A: 17,727,270 won;

(b) the defendant.

According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and arguments, it can be acknowledged that the defendant A, who is a co-inheritors of the network D (the death of April 26, 2016), and the defendant B (the above Seoul Family Court Seoul Family Court 2017Ra8079), the defendant C, and the non-party E (the above Seoul Family Court 2017Radan8078) received an inheritance approval trial on March 30, 2018, respectively.

(Visits, the previous designated parties F, a co-inheritors, were withdrawn from the lawsuit, and as to E, the decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on May 17, 2018, which is the same purport as the judgment of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, the lawsuit of this case, which was brought over ten (10) years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the claim based on a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gadan147678), has the interest in protecting the rights as a part of the interruption of prescription. The Defendants, who were subject to the adjudication of granting a re-approval of succession, have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff each share of 17,727,270 won (65,00,000 won x 3/11 shares x less than KRW 3/11 shares, hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively.

(A) If there exists a limited acceptance of inheritance, even if the obligation of the inheritee exceeds the value of the inherited property, the inheritor is liable only within the scope of the inherited property for the obligation of the inheritee. Therefore, the obligee can execute it within the limit of inherited property, and it cannot be executed for the inherent property of the inheritor. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified, and thus, it is accepted.