1. The plaintiff is jointly and severally with the non-party N andO

A. As to Defendant F and H KRW 18,362,276, respectively, and KRW 4,330,670 among them:

1. Indication of claims: To be entered in the cause of claims and the list of inheritance shares; and

2. Judgment by service of each claim against Defendant F, H, I, L, or M (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Each judgment on deemed confessions made against Defendant E or G (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

d. Claims against Defendant A, B, C, D, J, and K

A. The facts as stated in the corresponding part of the grounds for the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the overall purport of each entry and pleading set forth in subparagraphs A and 18 (including the provisional number). Therefore, the Defendants who inherited the net Q’s indemnity obligation to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount in accordance with the ratio of the attached inheritance shares to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Defendant A, B, C, and D’s defenses 1) The Defendants knew of the fact that the above deceased’s inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property at the time of the death of the deceased Q, who is the inheritee, and they knew of the fact that the above deceased’s inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property. After receiving each copy of the complaint of this case, the Defendants received a qualified acceptance report from the court and received a qualified acceptance judgment from the court, and thus, the Defendants did not have any responsibility for paying the amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff (the Defendant’s claim that the scope of liability against the Plaintiff should be limited to the scope of inherited property). In this case, the Family Court’s judgment on acceptance of the qualified acceptance report of the qualified acceptance was recognized as satisfying the requirements for the qualified acceptance, but the final judgment on whether the qualified acceptance was effective is decided in civil procedure pursuant to the substantive law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882, Nov. 8, 2002; Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act).