1. As to the case of use of credit card between the Defendant and the deceased, Daejeon District Court Decision 201Gau11337 decided May 2, 201

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 14, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B against Daejeon District Court Decision 2011DaDa11337, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum from January 4, 2011 to the date of full payment for KRW 8,351,117 and KRW 7,276,534, whichever is applicable” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

The instant judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2011.

B. On August 1, 2017, when B (hereinafter “the deceased”) died, the Defendant filed an application with Daejeon District Court for grant of the inheritance execution clause to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the inheritor of the deceased, and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to implement compulsory execution against the deceased.

On December 14, 2017, Daejeon District Court Branch C granted the succeeding execution clause (hereinafter referred to as “instant succeeding execution clause”) to the Defendant to implement compulsory execution against the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

C. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed a report on the recognition of the inheritance limited status under the Daejeon Family Court’s 2018-Madan5055, and the said court accepted the report of the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the scope of liability for the inheritance obligations of the Plaintiff and the designated parties according to the qualified acceptance by the Plaintiff and the designated parties is limited to the scope of the inherited property from the deceased. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant succession execution clause against the Plaintiff and the designated parties is allowed only within the scope of the inherited property from the deceased, and it is reasonable that they are allowed to refuse to accept only the excessive portion

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.