A. The Defendant loaned KRW 19,050,000 to the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) on September 13, 2013. The Deceased died around September 13, 2013.

B. On October 17, 2013, D, Plaintiff, E, and F, a bereaved family member of the Deceased, reported to the Seoul Family Court with an inheritance-limited approval, and stated the deceased’s active property in the list of inherited property as “no (the deceased’s bankruptcy progress)” and the debt “19,050,000 won” in the list of inherited property. On December 3, 2013, Seoul Family Court rendered a ruling of acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Deceased on the claim for loans against the deceased at this court 2013da1948, but the deceased died and succeeded to the lawsuit by D, the Plaintiff, E, and F, who is the inheritor of the deceased. On January 8, 2014, this Court decided to recommend reconciliation that “within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 4,233,33 won per annum from August 20, 2006 to December 9, 2013, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” and that “The foregoing decision became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014.

Based on the above decision of recommending reconciliation, the defendant applied for the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015TTT 6036 claims seizure and collection order, and received the seizure and collection order as to the plaintiff's claims stated in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is responsible for the repayment of the inheritance obligation within the scope of the inherited property inherited from the deceased, and according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view the claims listed in the attached list as the plaintiff's proprietary property. Therefore, compulsory execution cannot be permitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of the enforcement is justified.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim.