1. Compulsory execution based on the judgment of 2010Gadan17989 Decided August 26, 2010 against the Defendant’s previous owner of the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C and D with the Jeonju District Court 2010Kadan17989, and the above court rendered a judgment on August 26, 2010 that “C and D jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and the amount of 12% per annum from January 30, 2005 to July 28, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). Upon C’s death on July 30, 201, the Plaintiff, E, and F, the heir of C, filed an application for a limited acceptance of inheritance with the property list attached to the previous Jeju District Court Decision 2013Ra404 on May 23, 2013. On July 4, 2013, the said court received the adjudication for acceptance of the said qualified acceptance report from the above court, and the said property list attached at the time includes C’s small property, the debt owed by C to the Defendant based on the instant judgment, and the deposit balance with the Nonghyup is indicated as the active property.

Based on the instant judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against 101 Dong apartment G1804, 1804, Y-gu, Y-gu, Jeonju-si (Seoul District Court H), and on August 22, 2017, Jeonju District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction against the said real estate.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the judgment of the court below as to the ground for a claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff bears the responsibility pursuant to the judgment of this case only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C. Thus, compulsory execution against the defendant against the plaintiff of this case shall be allowed only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, and the exceeding part shall be rejected.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the plaintiff based on the judgment of this case should be entirely denied, but the plaintiff is within the scope of property inherited from the deceased C through qualified acceptance.