1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and C are jointly and severally and severally liable for 588,953,153 won and 139,000,000 won among them.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

However, ‘creditor' is regarded as ‘the defendant', ‘the debtor', ‘the plaintiff', and ‘the defendant'.

For debtor G, H, I, J, and K, a payment order was finalized.

2. Claim against Defendant 1. Judgment (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act), which is deemed a confession

3. Claim against Defendant 2.: Judgment by publication service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

4. Claim against Defendant 3. and 4.: In full view of the facts in dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff's claim against the above Defendants, such as the entry of the ground for the claim in the attached Form, may be accepted.

On the other hand, the above Defendants asserted that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they obtained limited approval in relation to the inheritance of the networkF, and they did not have any property inherited from the networkF.

However, as seen earlier, the above Defendants obtained limited approval in relation to the deceased’s inheritance, but merely limited approval in relation to the inheritance is limited to the inherited property. However, the court must render a judgment on the performance of the entire inherited property. However, since the debt has the nature of not being able to enforce compulsory execution with respect to the inherent property of the inheritor, it must be clearly stated that the execution can be made only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the execution judgment in order to limit the executory power. The Defendant’s claim on the detailed details of the property in the limited acceptance judgment is also arranged at the execution stage, and it is not the nature of discussion in this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above defendants' claim rejection.