1. The Defendant’s notary public against Nonparty F has the executory power of Nonparty F, No. 143, 2012.

1. The fact that the Defendant, on March 20, 2014, was forced to commence compulsory auction by the Seoul Central District Court G on the basis of an executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 143, No. 143, No. 2012, Mar. 20, 2012, on the basis of the fact that the Defendant, a notary public against Nonparty F, on the basis of an executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 143, 2012,

2. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim No. 2, according to the evidence evidence No. 2, F reported by the deceased H’s waiver of inheritance, including the instant real estate, on February 28, 2014, and the fact that the report on renunciation of inheritance was accepted on April 30, 2014 (the Seoul Family Court 2014Ra1978) is recognized.

Since such renunciation of inheritance takes effect retroactively to the time of commencement of inheritance, F did not acquire ownership of 2/13 of the real estate of this case for which the defendant had received a decision to commence compulsory auction.

Therefore, since the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiffs, who are the successors other than F, according to their inheritance shares, the defendant's compulsory execution as to the share of 2/13 of the real estate of this case, which is not the debtor, shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

3. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant is alleged to the effect that F's renunciation of inheritance is null and void as it goes against the good faith principle, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The defendant's above assertion is without merit

4. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and all of them are accepted. However, as to the bearing of litigation costs, Articles 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied. It is so decided as per Disposition.