1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 203,008,503 and KRW 57,435,640 among them shall be from April 19, 2015 to full payment.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the deceased's debt was inherited at the ratio of defendant C, D, E, F, and A's 2/13 by the ratio of defendant B, who is the inheritor, due to the death of the defendant C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the deceased's heir can be recognized as having received an inherited fixed approval judgment. Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay the same amount as the above mentioned in the order.

Since Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and A received the declaration of limited acceptance of inheritance, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, so the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited not to limit the existence of the obligation but to limit the scope of the liability. Thus, even in a case where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, as long as there is no inherited obligation or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation, the court shall render a judgment to fully perform the inherited obligation. However, inasmuch as the obligation of the inheritor’s inherent property cannot be subject to compulsory execution, it must be executed only within the extent of the inherited property in the text of the judgment of performance (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Accordingly, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion in this case where the Plaintiff sought payment against the above Defendants within the scope of inherited property is without merit.