1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

To the extent of the property inherited from the network E, the Plaintiff is within the scope of the property.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 1994, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming loans from the Busan District Court 94 Ghana301, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the above court to the effect that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4.1 million and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from June 6, 1990 to the full payment date,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 5 of the same year.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

E Deceased on April 25, 1995, and on November 24, 2003, the Plaintiff was granted an execution clause of succession to Defendant B, Defendant C, and children, who are the wife of the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”).

C. On March 15, 2004, the Defendants, the deceased’s inheritor, filed an application for qualified acceptance, attaching a list of the following: (a) the Changwon District Court’s Seoyang Branch Branch 2004Modan25, and (b) the Plaintiff did not have inherited property; (c) the Plaintiff’s debt 4.1 million won against the Plaintiff as a small property, and the amount equivalent to interest in arrears thereof was paid to the Plaintiff; and (d) the above court accepted it on March 15

On May 18, 2004, the Plaintiff, based on the inheritance execution clause granted to the Defendants, enforced compulsory execution against Defendant C on May 18, 2004. On December 20, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming loans against the Defendants, the deceased’s heir, seeking payment of KRW 4.1 million with Ulsan District Court Decision 2003Gapo246599, but was sentenced to retirement on March 16, 2004.

E. On June 9, 2004, Defendant C filed an objection suit against the Plaintiff on the ground of qualified acceptance (Ulsan District Court 2004Kadan20356). The Plaintiff asserted the effect of qualified acceptance in the above lawsuit, but the above court rendered a judgment denying compulsory execution in accordance with the final and conclusive judgment on the premise that the effect of qualified acceptance is valid, and the above judgment was all dismissed and finalized.

(Ulsan District Court 2004Na2762, Supreme Court 2005Na1865). F. The plaintiff extended the prescription period of the final judgment of this case.