A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) by Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2014Gaso890, but came to know that the deceased died on January 15, 2007, the Defendant corrected the deceased’s indication from his heir as the Plaintiffs.

B. On October 15, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiffs paid 8,928,865 won to the defendant and 19% per annum from September 27, 2003 to June 9, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On the other hand, on July 8, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a qualified acceptance report on the deceased’s property inheritance pursuant to the Young-gu Family Court’s Young-gu Family Court’s Young-gu Branch 2013Ra97, and accepted the said report on October 4, 2013.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since they made a qualified acceptance on the deceased's property inheritance, compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be denied.

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit filed by an obligee against an inheritor who inherited a debt of the inheritee by demanding the performance of such a debt of the inheritee, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject matter of adjudication, and thus, the scope of liability does not affect res judicata as well as the reasoning thereof. Therefore, even if an obligor did not assert the fact by the time the argument was concluded in the lawsuit brought by the obligee as qualified acceptance, and thus, even if a judgment was rendered without reservation as to the scope of liability became final and conclusive because the obligor did not assert the fact by the time the argument was concluded at the time of closing argument in the lawsuit brought by the obligee, the obligor may thereafter file a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim on the ground of the above qualified acceptance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23138, Oct