1. Compulsory execution based on the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Kadan68707 Decided December 23, 2010 against the Defendant’s Plaintiffs is enforced.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are children of the network C.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs and two others as Suwon District Court Decision 2010Kadan68707 (the Plaintiff’s heir who is the Defendant’s obligor for indemnity). On December 23, 2010, the lower court rendered a final and conclusive judgment that “The Plaintiff shall pay 47,708,168 won, respectively, among KRW 166,978,590, and KRW 47,071,200, as to KRW 15% per annum from August 31, 2010 to October 18, 2010, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (a judgment without pleadings, hereinafter “instant judgment”).

C. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a report on the approval of the limited acceptance of inheritance (hereinafter “the instant report on the qualified acceptance”) with the Suwon District Court 2010-Ma1088, and accepted the said report.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the plaintiffs are liable only within the scope of inherited property for the obligations of the deceased C upon acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiffs of this case against the plaintiffs shall be dismissed only within the part exceeding the scope of inherited property from the deceased C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the qualified acceptance of the instant case was accepted prior to the pronouncement of the instant judgment, and thus, is contrary to the res judicata of the instant judgment pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, and thus, cannot serve as a ground for objection to a claim. (2) In a lawsuit filed by a judgment obligee against an inheritor who inherited the inheritee’s monetary obligation, seeking the performance of the inheritance obligation against the inheritor, the scope of liability does not appear as a matter of practical adjudication, and thus, the scope of liability