1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 183,785,170 within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B; and (b) as to the Plaintiff’s property, on January 2015.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including additional numbers), the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B.

(2) The plaintiff accepted the defendant's defense of qualified acceptance and reduced the purport of the claim into the scope of inherited property. 2. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because the defendant received an inheritance limited acceptance judgment. However, since the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of an obligation, but it is merely limited to the scope of liability. Thus, if the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized even if there is an inheritance obligation, the court should determine the whole performance of the inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation. However, since the debt of the inheritor has a character of not being able to enforce compulsory execution against the inherent property of the inheritor, it is sufficient to specify the purport that the inheritance can be executed only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the execution judgment in order

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.