A. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs were the inheritors of E, who died on January 16, 2014, and filed a report on the inheritance-limited approval with the Daejeon Family Court No. 2014-Ma538, stating that the passive property exceeds the active property. The Plaintiffs were tried to accept the said report from the said court on April 28, 2014.

B. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs, the deceased’s heir, for inheritance debt, and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) from Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Gaso8136 on July 13, 2017 to the effect that “A” for KRW 651,221 and KRW 347,542 as to KRW 434,146 respectively and KRW 231,694 as to KRW 434,14 and KRW 29% per annum from February 2, 2017 to the date of full payment.

The Plaintiffs did not assert the fact of qualified acceptance in the above lawsuit, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The limitation of liability by qualified acceptance does not relate to the determination of the existence and scope of an inherited obligation, but is only limited to the scope of inherited property, thereby limiting the executory power of the judgment.

In particular, in a lawsuit brought by an obligee against an inheritor who succeeded to a monetary obligation of an inheritee seeking the performance of the inherited obligation, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of a practical adjudication, and thus, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of a practical adjudication, and thus, it does not affect the res judicata effect.

Therefore, even if the debtor makes a qualified acceptance, the extent of responsibility is the wind that does not assert the fact by the time the fact-finding proceedings in the lawsuit brought by the creditor.