1. The Defendant’s decision on the acquisition of the money by transfer against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties is rendered by this Court 2014da5070316.

1. According to each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and all of the arguments, the facts constituting "the grounds for the claim" can be acknowledged. Thus, compulsory execution based on the defendant's judgment of this court 2014Kadan5070316 (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party shall be allowed only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B, and the part in excess shall be rejected.

As to this, the defendant, the plaintiff (Appointeds), the appointed parties C, and D received a qualified acceptance trial on September 11, 2014, which was before the judgment of this case was rendered, and the appointed parties E was subject to a qualified acceptance trial on September 25, 2014, which was before the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and therefore, the claim of this case is unjust.

However, in a lawsuit brought by an obligee against an inheritor who inherited a pecuniary obligation of an inheritee seeking the performance of such obligation, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject matter of practical adjudication if the obligor does not assert the fact of qualified acceptance, and thus, the scope of liability does not reach res judicata as well as the reasoning thereof. Therefore, even if the obligor’s qualified acceptance is made, even if the obligee did not withhold the scope of liability until the time the argument of the lawsuit brought by the obligee is closed at the trial court, even if a judgment was rendered and confirmed without reservation as to the scope of liability that does not assert the fact

(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23138, Oct. 13, 2006). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the claim of this case is justified.