1. The defendant's payment order against the defendant was issued on February 7, 2002 by the Daegu District Court of the Daegu District Court of the Seoul District Court of the Republic of Korea, the 2002 tea 173.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 7, 2002, the Defendant received a payment order against G to the effect that “G shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 780,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from February 10, 2002 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and as the instant payment order became final and conclusive on February 24, 2002, as G did not raise an objection within two weeks from the date it was served with the instant payment order.

B. After that, G died on August 23, 2009. On September 25, 2017, as the Plaintiffs, who were G’s children, filed a report on the recognition of the succession to the Young-gu Family Court’s Young-gu Family Court’s territorial support 2017-Ma117, the said court rendered a judgment to accept the said report on January 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiffs against the plaintiffs of this case should be allowed only within the scope of the plaintiffs' inherited property from the net G, and the exceeding part constitutes compulsory execution against property which cannot be a responsible property.

B. As to this, the defendant asserted to the effect that since the plaintiffs filed a report on the approval of the inheritance limit as above in about eight years after the death of the deceased G, the judgment accepting the above report is unlawful or invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above report of the approval of the inheritance limit was made with the lapse of the period stipulated in Articles 1030(1) and 1019(1) and (3) of the Civil Act, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and they accept them, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit.