Defendant C and D shall be limited to KRW 20 million, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the net G, to the Plaintiff.

1.The following facts may be admitted either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the statements in Gap 1 and 2:

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G and G to sell approximately KRW 900 gall trees, which are planted in approximately KRW 100,00 square meters of 2,50 m20,210 square meters of 100 m20,000 square meters of spop trees planted in real estate, such as Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, G, for sale of approximately KRW 150,000 m20,000.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). According to the instant contract, G paid the Plaintiff the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on August 12, 2016, KRW 50 million on the part of the Plaintiff, KRW 50 million on September 2016, and KRW 50 million on the part of the intermediate payment by November 2016, and KRW 50 million on the remainder by December 31, 2016, and all of the said trees were to be extracted by December 31, 2018.

G was deceased on May 25, 2017 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and his heir is Defendant C, D, E, and F, who is the spouse of Defendant B, Defendant C, E, E, and F.

The plaintiff recognizes the fact that he received KRW 110 million from the deceased according to the instant sales contract.

2. However, in addition to the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3’s overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that Defendant B, E, and F received an adjudication to accept a report on the renunciation of inheritance against the deceased in the case of Defendant B, and C’s renunciation of inheritance on August 18, 2017, the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2017Radan134 decided on August 18, 2017, and that Defendant C and D received an adjudication to accept a report on the acceptance of qualified acceptance of inheritance inheritance against the deceased on November 14, 2017.

3. According to this, Defendant B, E, and F renounced the inheritance of the deceased’s property, and thus, they did not succeed to the sales price obligations of the deceased under the instant sales contract against the deceased.

The above defendants' defense pointing this out is just, and the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants cannot be accepted.

4. In addition, Defendant C and D inherited the deceased’s obligation to the deceased within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased. As such, the share of inheritance is equal within the scope of the deceased’s inherited property.