1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the designated person C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant A and Defendant B (Appointed) to the Plaintiff respectively 10,255.

1. The facts of the reasons for the attachment of the facts of recognition, the records of the changed reasons for the claim, and the facts of the deceased D on October 27, 2007 are recognized in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the serial number) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. With respect to the determination of the legitimacy of the suit against the Appointor C, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the inheritance share of the Appointor C out of the net D’s debt to the Appointor C, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Appointor C was exempted from immunity.

On September 16, 2013, the Appointor C was granted decision to grant immunity from Seoul Central District Court 2013Da3744 on September 16, 2013, and the fact that the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive is not an obvious dispute between the Plaintiff and the confession is deemed to have

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim against the designated person C constitutes a bankruptcy claim as a property claim arising from a cause arising before the bankruptcy is declared, and thus, the designated person C's obligation to the plaintiff was exempted from its liability due to the above immunity decision.

Therefore, since the above claim has lost the right and executory power of filing a lawsuit which has ordinary claims, the lawsuit of this case against the designated party C is unlawful.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant A and Defendant (Appointed Party) B, Defendant A and Defendant B are liable to pay the same amount as that of the above claim to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the network D.

4. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the appointed party C is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the claim against the defendant A and the defendant (appointed party) B is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.