1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased H, to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall be KRW 8,250,000 and this shall apply.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the facts constituting the grounds for the claim (However, the part on the " April 10, 2007" as stated in paragraph (1) of the grounds for the claim refers to the clerical error in the register of April 10, 2005) and the facts that the Defendants accepted the report on qualified acceptance with respect to H’s inherited property on January 6, 2010 on January 15, 2010 (case No. 1: Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2010) and May 8, 2019.

2. Determination

A. The qualified acceptance of inheritance is not limited to the existence of an obligation, but merely limited to the scope of the liability. Thus, in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, if the inheritance obligation exists even if the inheritance is deemed to exist, the court must render a judgment on the performance of the entire inheritance obligation even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inheritance obligation. However, it is sufficient to specify the purport that the obligation can be executed only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance in order to restrict executory power, since the obligation has a character not to enforce compulsory execution with respect

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). B.

According to the facts stated in paragraph (1) and the above legal doctrine, the Defendants, the heir of H, are obligated to pay the lease deposit to the Plaintiff within the scope of the inherited property of H.

C. Furthermore, we examine the amount payable by the Defendants.

The fact that the amount of the Plaintiff’s lease deposit is KRW 35,00,000 as seen earlier is the same, and the portion of the Plaintiff’s lease deposit’s inheritance is the same as 1/4 of each of the Defendants.

Therefore, within the scope of the Plaintiff’s inherited property from H, ① Defendant B, C, and D each amounting to KRW 8,250,000 (=35,00,000 + 1/4) and each amount equal to KRW 8,250,00.