(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단31956

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단31956

제3자이의의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Incheon District Court 2005da117677, and was sentenced to the judgment of the above court that “C shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 71,50,000 and 20% per annum from January 9, 2006 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. C died on May 22, 2009 (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff succeeded to 2/5 shares of the Deceased.

C. On January 22, 2015, the Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause of the instant judgment from the instant court, and accordingly, issued a collection order for the instant claim owned by the Plaintiff on February 3, 2015, under the Incheon District Court Decision 2015TT2792 (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). D.

On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on qualified acceptance (hereinafter “instant qualified acceptance”) with the Incheon District Court 2015-Ma10020, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the qualified acceptance report on April 16, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff is not aware that the judgment of this case was pronounced.

The qualified acceptance of this case is valid since, only after being served with the seizure and collection order of this case, the deceased filed a special fixed acceptance report within three months from the date of knowing that his inherited obligation exceeds the inherited property.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the claim of this case owned by the defendant is unlawful as it is against the plaintiff's proprietary property, not inherited property.

B. The Plaintiff, on June 1, 201, knew that the inheritance liability exceeds the inherited property upon receiving the delivery of the inheritance execution clause of the instant judgment.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단66641

-대구지방법원 2016.06.16 2015나310733

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.11.26 2015가단3103

-인천지방법원 2016.01.08 2015가단20116

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.17 2019가단2189