A. On January 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) lent F the due date set as April 24, 2013 to F; (b) lent KRW 30 million to F; and (c) D, the mother of F on the same day, jointly and severally guaranteed F’s obligation to the Defendant.

B. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant, who was not repaid the loan from F, etc., filed a lawsuit against F and D with the Suwon District Court 2013Kadan68968, which stated that “F and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 25,659,280 won and 30% per annum from April 13, 2013 to the date of complete payment,” and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

D The deceased on December 4, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and the heir are F and the Plaintiffs, who are children.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs reported qualified acceptance on the deceased’s inherited property by Suwon District Court No. 2017Ra50120, and the said court rendered a judgment of acceptance on April 24, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant qualified acceptance” for convenience. The list of inherited property submitted to the above court at the time of the above reporting by the Plaintiffs is recorded as one vehicle as the active property of the Deceased, and the obligation of this case is entered as the passive property of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the assertion is that, around February 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs were served with an execution clause of succession to the final and conclusive judgment of this case and the Defendant came to know that he/she holds claims against the Deceased based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case, the qualified acceptance made within three months thereafter is lawful, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case against the Deceased should be denied only to the part exceeding the scope of the property inherited by the Plaintiffs from the Deceased.