beta
Text
1. The repayment of the lease deposit to the Defendant’s net E by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2005dan5872 Decided August 16, 2005.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 16, 2005, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased E seeking the return of the lease deposit under the 2005da5872, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the deceased E shall pay to the defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 16, 2005 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") that "the deceased E shall pay to the defendant 60,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 16, 2005" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and by the judgment of the case of return of the lease deposit deposit, the obligation borne by the deceased E to the defendant was finalized at that time.
B. As the network E dies on June 21, 2009, the Plaintiffs and G, as the heir of the network E, filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance under the Family Branch of Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Ra1397, Sept. 22, 2009 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on the acceptance of qualified acceptance”). Since G died on March 16, 201, the Plaintiffs, who were the heir of the network G, filed a report on the acceptance of qualified acceptance again with the Gwangju District Court Decision 201Mo400, Aug. 24, 2011, and received an adjudication on the acceptance of the said acceptance of qualified acceptance from the said court.
C. After that, the Defendant applied for the grant of the succeeding execution clause by designating the Plaintiffs as the deceased’s successors. On December 27, 2012, YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, the Seoul District Court: (a) granted the succeeding execution clause (hereinafter “instant succeeding execution clause”) to the Defendant by having the Plaintiffs as the deceased’s successors as the deceased’s successors; (b) a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was sent to the Plaintiff A on January 29, 2013; and (c) January 2, 2013; and (d) January 3, 2013 to the Plaintiff C, respectively.
After all, the defendant, around April 30, 2013, enforced compulsory execution against the plaintiff C's movable property as the Gwangju District Court 2013No. 2430 and the same court 2013No. 2431.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' arguments.