1. On October 4, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gaso24923.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on October 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the her her son were judged to have succeeded to the qualification of the deceased on April 6, 2016 by the Government District Court Decision 2015 Mo2511.

B. The Defendant rendered a favorable judgment on August 19, 2016 in the loan case (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Daso24923) brought against the Plaintiff and D.

The content of "A and D shall pay to B 7,50,000 won each within the scope of property inherited from the net C and 39% per annum from September 14, 2013 to May 10, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." This decision was finalized on September 20, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). C.

On October 4, 2016, based on the original copy of the judgment of this case, the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) regarding the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Bank of Korea as Seoul Southern District Court 2016TTT137.

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is liable for the performance of its obligations against the Defendant within the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, based on the collection order of this case, the fact that the deposit claim (Account Number E) against the Plaintiff’s bank attached by the Defendant constitutes the Plaintiff’s proprietary property that does not include the inherited property from the deceased.

B. Therefore, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim is illegal as it is against the Plaintiff’s inherent property, not the deceased’s responsible property. Therefore, it should be rejected.

3. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted in full.