1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by Suwon District Court on August 21, 2018 with respect to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant had a claim against the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), but died on August 14, 2017.

B. On October 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, etc., the deceased’s heir, as the Suwon District Court Decision 2017No4043, Oct. 13, 2017.

On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of a duplicate of the above complaint, filed a qualified acceptance report for inheritance with the Daegu Family Court of Law No. 2017-Ma338, and the said court rendered a judgment on January 31, 2018 to accept the report on qualified acceptance for inheritance.

C. On August 21, 2018, the said Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that “within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 1,63,500 won with interest of 15% per annum from November 21, 2017 to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

On the basis of the executory exemplification of the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch D, and on December 4, 2018, the enforcement officer of the said court seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet E and F in Ansan-si E and F residing in the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”).

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). 【Ground of Recognition】 There exists no dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 through 3, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, since the plaintiff was tried to approve the inheritance limit, the plaintiff is responsible for the repayment of the inheritance obligation within the scope of the inherited property from the deceased. Since it is reasonable to see that each of the movable property of this case is the plaintiff's own property, compulsory execution against it is not permissible, its execution should be excluded.

Although the defendant asserts that there is no validity of the adjudication on the inheritance approval of the plaintiff, the defendant's above assertion is without any evidence to acknowledge it.