1. The Defendants: (a) each of the KRW 17,013,562 and each of the KRW 12,287, within the scope of property inherited from the deceased C, to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers), the defendants are obligated to pay the money claimed within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C.

(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). Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.