2. The single mother;

Ulsan-gu Office of the plaintiffs

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff Kim

Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court Decision 100 Doz. 100 Gaz. (Boro 2, Papua New)

Representative Director;

Attorney Lee In-bok

2. On June 14, 2019 with respect to the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court, the decision of the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court rendered on June 14, 2019 shall be authorized only to the part exceeding the inherited property indicated in the separate sheet inherited from the deceased.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against Egnets seeking damages for delay of KRW 10,591,597 and damages for delay of KRW 10,129,581, out of the amount of credit card use by the Ulsan District Court 2013dadada110910, and the above court rendered a judgment accepting all the Defendant’s claims on May 21, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2013 (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”).

B. On October 9, 2013, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died without his/her spouse and children, and the Plaintiffs inherited the deceased’s property as the parents of the deceased. On March 18, 2019, the Defendant received from the Ulsan District Court on March 18, 2019 a succession execution clause by designating the Plaintiffs as the successors of the deceased as to the instant final judgment, and the Plaintiffs received a certified copy of the above succession execution clause on March 25, 2019.

D. On April 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs entered the list of inherited property in the Ulsan Family Court No. 2019Mo430, Ulsan Family Court, and reported the inheritance limited acceptance. The said court rendered a judgment accepting the said report on May 17, 2019.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 4, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act provides that a qualified acceptance may be made within three months from the date on which an inheritor becomes aware of the excess of inherited property, even in cases where a simple approval has been made pursuant to subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026 of the Civil Act, without gross negligence, without knowing the excess of inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, as well as where a simple approval has been made pursuant to subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026 of the Civil Act without being aware of the excess of inherited property. In such cases, the Civil Act provides that “if an inheritor has paid due attention to the gross negligence, he/she was able to know the excess of inherited property if he/she was aware of the fact that the inherited property exceeds inherited property.” The heir bears the burden of proving that an inheritor was unable to know of the excess of inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201

The evidence adopted earlier and evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 2, and No. 5 of the Evidence No. 1, No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 5 of the same Court; and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Governor of the Korea Credit Information Institute to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: ① although the Deceased living together with the Plaintiffs who are his parents, the Deceased did not appear overseas or immediately after April 2013, 201, the Deceased did not have any contact with the Plaintiffs, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs did not know the details of their obligations to the Plaintiffs, or that there was no reason to view that the Plaintiffs did not know the existence of obligations to the Deceased or the Plaintiffs before receiving the inheritance execution clause after the final judgment of this case; ② The Plaintiffs did not appear to have known of the facts that the Plaintiffs did not know of the inheritance execution clause, such as the heir’s liability and the heir’s demand for reimbursement within three months prior to the death of inheritance execution clause.

Therefore, the judgment of acceptance of a qualified acceptance report by the plaintiffs is valid, and compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case against the plaintiffs of the defendant should be allowed only within the scope of the list of inherited property inherited from the deceased, and the exceeding part shall be rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted on the grounds of the reasons.