1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, B, and C shall be entitled to KRW 18,108,073, respectively, to the extent that they succeed to the property from the network H.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the facts constituting the grounds for the claim can be acknowledged. Thus, the defendants are obliged to pay the amount of money indicated in each order.

Since Defendant A, B, and C received the judgment that the heir of the deceased would accept the report of limited acceptance of inheritance from the court, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. As such, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited to the scope of liability, not to limit the existence of the obligation. Thus, even in a case where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, insofar as the inheritance obligation is recognized as existing, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inheritance 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 cannot be subject to compulsory execution with respect to the inherent property of the heir, it must be clearly stated in the text of the execution judgment that the heir can execute the inheritance only within the scope of the inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Accordingly, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion in this case where the Plaintiff sought payment from the above Defendants within the scope of inherited property is without merit.