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

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of B who died on February 11, 2009, and the Defendant is the company that issued the credit card to B.

B. On January 10, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the above B seeking payment of the credit card use price under this Court No. 2011 Ghana909.

The facts revealed that B died in the lawsuit above, and the defendant changed from B to the Plaintiff, and the duplicate of the complaint, etc. of the above case was served on March 25, 201 as Pyeongtaek-si apartment 210 Dong 504, which is the Plaintiff’s resident registration domicile, and D received them.

C. On October 19, 201, the Plaintiff received a delivery of a copy of the complaint, etc. of the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for a limited acceptance with the purport that: (a) the Plaintiff did not have positive property under this court’s 2011-Ma589; and (b) the Plaintiff filed an application for a limited acceptance with the purport that the Defendant’s credit card payment obligation was KRW 3,224,179 with a passive property; and (c) the court accepted the application on June 8, 2012.

On November 2, 2011, this Court rendered a judgment of the first instance that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant an amount of 5,385,148 won and 29.9% interest per annum from January 4, 2011 to the date of full payment of 3,224,179 won."

E) The Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment of the first instance court set forth in the above sub-paragraph (c) and appealed by Suwon District Court 201Na42741, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 1, 2012. The above judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on May 19, 2012. The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was a decision to accept a qualified acceptance trial after the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the appellate court on this issue, and that compulsory execution based on the above judgment of the first instance shall not be allowed since the plaintiff did not have any active property inherited from B.

B. We examine the judgment, and respond to the judgment of the Family Court on acceptance of a qualified acceptance report.