1. The Daegu District Court rendered a judgment with the executory power over the defendant C's application for compensation order (No. 2008 initially 57).

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff’s execution title C was sentenced to imprisonment of ten months with prison labor for fraud against the Defendant (Tgu District Court Branching the 2008 Highest 56), and on the same day, “C would pay KRW 70 million to the Defendant” was issued a compensation order (C). The above judgment and compensation order became final and conclusive on May 22, 2008.

B. C, the obligor for the grant of the succeeding execution clause, died on January 22, 2009. On March 9, 2017, 2017, the senior clerk D of the Daegu District Court branch court granted the succeeding execution clause as to the Plaintiff, etc., who is the co-inheritors, as the co-inheritors, upon the Defendant’s application.

C. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, the heir of C’s report on the qualified acceptance, filed a report on the qualified acceptance on March 20, 2017, stating that the deceased’s liability to compensate for damages to the Defendant is a negative property, and that the deceased’s active property is not “unclaimed (unclaimed).” On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff received the report on the qualified acceptance.

(B) The Daegu Family Court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court's branch court

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the report on qualified acceptance issued by the repair decision on April 7, 2017 against the Plaintiff was effective under the substantive law pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act. This is directly connected to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within three months from January 22, 2009, where the Plaintiff died.

However, since the Plaintiff was incompetent as a minor at the time of January 22, 2009, which was the date commencing the inheritance, the Plaintiff’s “serious negligence” should be determined based on the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly E, who was the legal representative of the Plaintiff at that time.

(Final) As to the Plaintiff’s “serious negligence” that was a minor, the Defendant’s argument is without merit in itself). See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da440 Decided March 15, 2012, etc.

B. Fact that there is no dispute over judgment, Gap Nos. 1-4, and