1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Boh Un Co., Ltd. and A jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 416,321,167 and KRW 100,000 among them.

1. Claim against Defendant Boba, A, and C

A. The grounds for the attachment to the description of the claim and the modified claims are as set out in the corresponding part of the above Defendants.

(b) Article 208(3)3 (Decision by Public Notice) (2) of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 208(3)2 (Decision by Public Notice) of the Act; Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Defendant D is obligated to pay the money set forth in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, since it is recognized that the same facts as the grounds for the claim and the amended grounds for the claim are recognized.

(The plaintiff accepted the above defendant's defense of qualified acceptance and reduced the claim into the scope of inherited property).

Although the above defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because of the inheritance limited acceptance judgment, the qualified acceptance of inheritance does not limit the existence of the obligation, but merely limit the scope of liability, so it is acknowledged that there is an inherited obligation even in cases where the qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall 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 inherited property. However, it is sufficient to specify the purport that the execution can be made only within the scope of inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance in order to limit the executory power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 delivered on November 14, 2003). Accordingly, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.