A. The Defendant had a claim against the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased, and death on December 5, 2012), and filed a lawsuit claiming the acquisition amount against the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the deceased, and was sentenced to a judgment by a public notice of winning the Defendant’s judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) stating that “15,617,415 won and 8,170,651 won among them are to be paid at the rate of 44% per annum from January 9, 2015 to the date of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Seoul Family Court approval of the inheritance limit granted under the Seoul Family Court Order 2013 Madan1832, and received the repair adjudication from the above court on March 20, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant Qualified Acceptance Judgment”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case should be denied, since the plaintiff was subject to the adjudication on qualified acceptance of this case.

B. In a lawsuit brought by a judgment obligee against an inheritor who inherited the inheritee’s monetary obligation, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of adjudication if the obligor does not assert the fact of qualified acceptance, and thus, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of adjudication as well as the reasoning thereof does not affect res judicata.

Therefore, even if an obligor, even though a qualified acceptance was made by the obligor, failed to assert the fact by the time the argument is closed at the trial court in the lawsuit brought by the obligee, and thus no reservation of the scope of liability became final and conclusive, the obligor may thereafter file a lawsuit of demurrer

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23138, Oct. 13, 2006). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is the case.