승계집행문부여에대한 이의
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 201khob294
1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7:
The defendant jointly and severally filed a claim against E and the plaintiff Eul for payment order of KRW 153,700,000 and delayed damages for the payment order of KRW 153,70,000 against the defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Hu7276). The payment order for the plaintiff Eul was finalized on April 27, 2007 (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"), and the plaintiff Eul filed an objection against the above payment order and dismissed the defendant's claim on January 16, 2008 (Dasan District Court 2007Ga12640). The decision became final and conclusive as it is.
B. On June 6, 2010, E died on June 6, 2010, there is Plaintiff B and C, the husband of whom is the Plaintiff A and C.
C. On January 5, 201, the Defendant applied for the grant of the succeeding execution clause against the instant payment order against the Plaintiffs, who are property successors of E, and received the succeeding execution clause on January 5, 201.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an application for the inheritance limited acceptance with the inheritee as Busan District Court Family Branch Decision 2010-Ma3844, and received the adjudication accepting the report on the qualified acceptance on February 24, 2011.
(2) On February, 200, the Plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be revoked or rejected in excess of the scope of inherited property from E, and the Defendant asserted that the above report of qualified acceptance was made after the lapse of 3 months from the date on which the Plaintiffs knew that the inheritance commenced against E and that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property.
3. The adjudication on acceptance of a report on a qualified acceptance by the family court shall be deemed that the report on a qualified acceptance satisfies the requirements for a qualified acceptance.