1. The Defendant’s payment order for the purchase price of goods is based on the Busan District Court’s 2016 tea 16659 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) with the content that “the deceased shall pay to the Defendant 11,697,318 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from July 11, 2016 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above payment order was finalized on August 12, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On November 24, 2016, the Deceased died, and his heir has D, E, and F, the spouse of the Deceased.

On December 27, 2016, the aforementioned inheritors, including the Plaintiff, filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance with the list of inherited property, as follows: (a) on February 28, 2017, the said inheritors received an adjudication on the acceptance of the said report on qualified acceptance from the said court on February 28, 2017.

[List of Inherited Property]

1. No positive property;

2. Claim for the purchase of goods against the defendant 11,697,318 won against the creditor of the small property negative;

C. On the other hand, on January 23, 2017, the Defendant received the inheritance execution clause regarding the instant payment order for compulsory execution against the above inheritors including the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 7 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s instant payment order against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff should be dismissed only on the part exceeding the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff intentionally stated that the deceased, who had operated his pharmacy before his death, owns deposit claims, loan claims against E, a child, and claim for refund of lease deposit money, etc. as “no property” in the list of inherited property, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased had been holding the deposit claims