1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Defendants added the judgment as to the following allegations in the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot be liable to the Plaintiff under the instant agreement in a situation where the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not have any property inherited from the network E. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1, the Defendants filed a petition with Seoul Family Court 2015 Ga-Ma30017 for a judgment on special acceptance. However, the Defendants’ claim for a judgment on qualified acceptance with the lapse of three months from the time the Defendants became aware of the existence of the obligation was dismissed on August 17, 2015 on the ground that the claim for a judgment on qualified acceptance with the lapse of three months from

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendants.