1. On the decision of this Court on the Defendant’s net F, the Court Branch G in relation to the decision of this Court 2012Gahap2872.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On July 11, 2013, the Court rendered a judgment that “F (the Deceased, Sept. 10, 2017, hereinafter the Deceased”) shall pay KRW 134,282,00 and any delay damages therefrom to the Defendant (hereinafter the judgment in this case)” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 29, 2017, the Court Branch G granted to the Defendant the execution clause against the instant judgment that, as the inheritor of the deceased, the spouse H and the Plaintiffs, who were his spouse H and their offspring, were the successors (hereinafter “instant succession execution clause”).

C. The District Court accepted respectively the Plaintiff B and C’s report on the deceased’s inheritance inheritance approval as of December 6, 2017, and the Plaintiff A’s renunciation of inheritance as of December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff A did not have the standing to succeed by waiver of inheritance, and the plaintiff B and C bears the liability for the inherited property within the scope of inherited property by qualified acceptance of inheritance. As such, compulsory execution based on the succession execution clause of this case shall not be permitted against the plaintiff A, and with respect to the plaintiff B and C, it shall not be permitted only to the part exceeding the scope of the property inherited from each deceased.

On the other hand, although the plaintiff B and C sought the rejection of the whole compulsory execution based on the inheritance execution clause of this case, as seen earlier, the plaintiff B and C cannot refuse the execution within the scope of their inherited property by granting a qualified acceptance of inheritance. Thus, the plaintiff B and C's claims for this part are without merit.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant either disposed of one inherited property determined as to the Defendant’s assertion or omitted inherited property on the property list, and that the real estate under the Plaintiff B’s spouse I acquired by disposing of inherited property, and the Plaintiff C did not enter the real estate trusted by the deceased in the property list.