A. On July 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B by Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Gabu268026, and sentenced that “B shall pay to the Defendant 7,299,399 won and 2,190,300 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from May 26, 2013 to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment was finalized as it is.

B. After that, B died on January 31, 2014, and the Plaintiff, the heir of B (hereinafter “the deceased”) with respect to 2/9 shares of the inherited property, as to B’s 2/9 shares, was accepted on April 22, 2014 by filing a report on the qualified acceptance of the deceased’s inheritance with Seoul Family Court Decision 2014Ra3962, Apr. 22, 2014, on July 16, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant received a claim attachment and collection order (Seoul Northern District Court 2015TTT 100561) as to the deposit claims in the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff and the Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff with the above judgment on the deceased.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The qualified acceptance is a restriction on the scope of the heir's liability, and it is not possible to exclude the executory power by denying compulsory execution based on a final judgment on the ground that the qualified acceptance was made, but it is reasonable to declare the reservation on the scope of the heir's property other than the inherited property in a manner that the heir does not allow compulsory execution on the heir's inherent property. As such, in the instant case, insofar as the qualified acceptance was made on the deceased's property inheritance, compulsory execution based on the above judgment is limited within the scope of the heir's inherited property, and compulsory execution on the heir's inherent property should be denied.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and thus, it is sought to accept it and to refuse compulsory execution against inherited property.