1.(a)

On April 13, 2015, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 tea18582 against Plaintiff A, C, and D.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each of the statements stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for a payment order to pay the deceased G (the deceased on December 2, 2018, hereinafter "the deceased") to pay credit card use fees. The above court on April 13, 2015: "The deceased shall be 5,020,123 won and 2,364,80 won among them shall be 24.3% per annum from April 4, 2015 to the day of complete payment; 2,300,000 won per annum from April 4, 2015 to the day of complete payment; the defendant shall be 29% per annum from April 4, 2015 to the day of complete payment; the defendant shall be 29% per annum 9, 195,730 won per annum 15, respectively; the plaintiff shall be 25% per annum 35,2015."

According to the above facts of recognition, since plaintiffs A, C, and D were not the deceased's heir by giving up inheritance, compulsory execution based on the payment order order of this case against plaintiffs A, C, and D shall not be allowed. Since the plaintiff B, who made the qualified acceptance for inheritance, is responsible for the repayment of the deceased's obligations within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff B shall be dismissed only for the part exceeding the scope of the property inherited from the deceased.

Therefore, the claims of plaintiffs A, C, and D are justified, and they are justified within the scope of the above recognition.