1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall be KRW 31,973,216 and 1,415 among them.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Defendants received a judgment accepting the report of qualified acceptance from the said court on May 24, 2013, by filing a report of qualified acceptance with the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Branching 2013Ra243 on April 29, 2013.

According to the above facts, the defendants, as the heir of the network E, are obligated to pay each money stated in the purport of the claim within the scope of the property inherited from the network E.

2. The Defendants asserted that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that they received the adjudication on qualified acceptance and did not have any property inherited from the network E.

However, the qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of the obligation, but merely limited to the scope of the liability, so even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the obligation, the judgment of performance of the entire obligation should be rendered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003, however, inasmuch as compulsory execution is not possible with respect to the inherent property of an inheritor, it shall be clearly stated in the text that it can be executed only within the extent of inherited property in order to restrict the executory power. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified.