1. The Defendants, within the scope of their property inherited from the network D (E) and each of the Plaintiff’s KRW 56,858,758.

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the facts as indicated in the grounds for appeal in the separate sheet can be acknowledged. Thus, within the scope of the property inherited from the network D, the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff 56,858,758 won [=176,276 won [=169,934,876 won in additional guarantee fee of KRW 151,320 in additional guarantee fee of KRW 169,934,876 (=490,080 in additional guarantee fee of KRW 151,320 in additional guarantee fee of KRW 169,934,958 in total) x 56,64,958 (i.e., the balance of subrogated repayment x 169,934,876 won in total x 1/3 in total) per annum from the day following the date of subrogation to the date of final delivery of the complaint.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that since the report on qualified acceptance of inheritance was accepted after the death of the deceased D, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants should be dismissed in entirety. However, if the inheritor files a report on qualified acceptance pursuant to Article 1028 of the Civil Code, the liability of the qualified acceptor for the obligation of the inheritee is limited to the inherited property, and as a result, the inheritance obligee cannot perform compulsory execution against the inherited property of the qualified acceptor, and can receive the satisfaction of the claim only from the inherited property, barring any special circumstance, and the inheritance obligation itself does not become extinct by the qualified acceptance of inheritance. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified, and this is accepted.