1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A and B jointly and severally agreed on KRW 133,145,406 and KRW 30,000,000 among them.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts as stated in the reasons for the attachment of the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by evidence Nos. 1 through 8, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and no counter-proof exists

B. Accordingly, Defendant A and B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 9, 2015 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of KRW 133,145,406 and the principal amount of KRW 30,00,000,00. Defendant C, D, E, and F, jointly and severally with Defendant A and jointly with Defendant A, are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay within the limit of inherited property calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 9, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the allegations by Defendant C, D, E, and F, the Defendants filed a report of qualified acceptance. They asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed because there is no real inherited property.

Since the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of liability, insofar as the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized as the existence of an obligation, the court should render a judgment on the performance of the entire obligation, even if the inheritance does not exist or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the obligation.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). However, in order to restrict enforcement, the purport that the obligation may be executed only within the extent of inherited property should be specified in the text of the performance judgment, as it has the nature of not being able to enforce compulsory execution against the inheritor’s proprietary property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). In this case, the Plaintiff accepted the said Defendants’ assertion that “the Plaintiff completed the report of limited recognition,” and in accordance with the legal principles of the said Supreme Court’s judgment, the Plaintiff accepted the said Defendants’ assertion.