1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Within the scope of the property inherited from the network G, Defendant A, B, C, D, and E respectively, KRW 9,577,576.

1. The facts constituting the grounds for the attachment are either a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A, C, D, or E (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”) or by the entry of the evidence No. 1, pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant F.

2. However, the fact that Defendant A, etc. reported the qualified acceptance and the report was accepted on April 16, 2018 (the Seoul Family Court Decision 2017 Madan9051) did not conflict between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants.

Defendant A et al. requested dismissal on the ground of the acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance, but the qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely limited not to limit the existence of an obligation, but to limit the scope of liability. Thus, as long as the qualified acceptance is recognized even if the existence of an inherited obligation is recognized, the court must render a judgment on the whole performance of the inherited obligation, even if there is no inherited property or the inherited property is insufficient

However, since the debt of the heir has a character that it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution against the heir's proprietary property, it is clearly stated that it can be executed only to the extent of inherited property within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the performance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003). 3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant F is accepted, and the claim against the defendant A, etc. is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.