1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A’s KRW 81,917,569 and KRW 27,895,858 among them:

B. Defendant B, C, and D are Nonparty 1.

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 13 can be acknowledged. Thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money indicated in the order.

Defendant B, C, and D received from the court an adjudication that they would accept a report of limited acceptance of inheritance from the deceased E, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. Thus, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited to the scope of liability, not to limit the existence of an obligation. Thus, even in a case where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, inasmuch as there is no inherited obligation or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation, the court shall render a judgment on the performance of the entire inherited obligation. However, inasmuch as the obligation of the inheritor is not a compulsory execution of the heir’s proprietary property, it must be clearly stated in the text of the execution judgment that it can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). Accordingly, in this case where the Plaintiff sought payment from the above Defendants within the scope of inherited property from the deceased E, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.