1. The Plaintiff:

(a) For the Selections D: 5,626,726 won and 5,601,553 won among them:

(b) Selection E, F, G, H.

1. The facts of the cause of the claim after changing the attachment of the judgment on the claims against the remaining designated parties other than the Defendant (Appointed Party) can be acknowledged by the following: (a) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Appointed, E, F, G, H, I, and J; (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 5; and (c) evidence Nos. 1 to 5; and (d) evidence No. 1 to 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claims against D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are accepted for reasons.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party)

A. The facts of the reasons for the claim after the alteration of the attachment of the facts of recognition do not conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant (appointed parties), or can be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Eul evidence No. 1.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (the appointed party) was aware of the fact that high-priced agricultural machinery (electric light and agricultural products drying machines, etc.) were inherited property of the network K (hereinafter “the network”) and did not intentionally enter this in the property list at the time of the report on qualified acceptance.

This constitutes a ground for simple approval under Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code, and thus, the defendant (Appointed Party) is obligated to pay all the obligations corresponding to the deceased's inheritance shares to the deceased as the inheritor of the deceased.

(2) The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted by the Defendant (Appointed Party) was accepted by filing a qualified acceptance report.

The Defendant (Appointed Party) used the agricultural machinery of the Plaintiff’s assertion before the death of the deceased, and used it until now after the death of the deceased, but the Defendant (Appointed Party) did not intentionally omit the agricultural machinery inherited at the time of the report on qualified acceptance in the inventory.

C. In light of the overall purport of the evidence presented in the instant case, the Defendant (Appointed Party) knows that there were agricultural machinery (such as power flag, agricultural products drying machine, etc.) inherited property of the deceased at the time of filing a qualified acceptance report.