1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

(Evidence) The first instance court’s findings and determination are justifiable, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court is viewed as evidence No. 27 through 31 and R’s testimony by the witness of the first instance court, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff).

The judgment of the court of first instance between the fifth and the fifth fifth is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fifth and fifth is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following shall be added at least 17 pages of the judgment of the first instance:

In the case of an objection against the grant of the execution clause against succession filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserted that “the part against the Defendants among the succession execution clause granted against the final judgment of this case shall be revoked only if it exceeds the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Kaga145, and even based on the above decision, it is difficult for the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff to specify the scope of the property inherited by the Defendants, as well as it is difficult for the Plaintiff to specify the scope of the property inherited by the Defendants, and that the instant report on the qualified acceptance becomes null and void. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion that there is a benefit to seek the grant of the execution clause

However, even through the lawsuit of this case, the defendants cannot specify the scope of property inherited from the deceased in detail. This case does not change.