1. The Defendant’s decision on the recommendation of performance for the loan case against the Defendant’s Plaintiff at the Chuncheon District Court Branch of 2015 Ghana1822.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The Deceased died on February 14, 2015.

C. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was inherited in 3/7 shares of the deceased’s loan obligations worth KRW 20 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan obligations”), and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan under Chuncheon District Court Branch Branch 2015 Ghana1822. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a performance recommendation decision on September 2, 2015, stating that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount equivalent to 3/7 of KRW 2000,000 and the delayed payment thereof,” and the said performance recommendation decision was served on the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015, and became final and conclusive as is September 22, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on performance recommendation”) D. D.

On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported that the qualified acceptance (hereinafter “instant qualified acceptance”) is made in the inheritance of the deceased’s property as a public official branch of the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court 2015Modan136, and received the adjudication on October 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was not aware of the fact that the deceased’s inherited debt exceeds inherited property (hereinafter “the deceased’s debt excess”) without gross negligence, and was aware of the fact on September 7, 2015, that the Plaintiff received the instant performance recommendation decision. Accordingly, the instant qualified acceptance, which was filed within three months thereafter, is valid, and accordingly, compulsory execution based on the instant performance recommendation decision ought to be denied.

B. On February 14, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the instant loan obligation against the Defendant by the Deceased, and became aware of the existence of the obligation of the Deceased. As such, the instant qualified acceptance, which was reported after the lapse of three months thereafter, is null and void.

3...