[1] In cases where a qualified acceptance report was already accepted at the time of granting an inheritance execution clause, but such report was not revealed or a qualified acceptance report was accepted after the inheritance execution clause was granted, the method of remedy by an inheritor

[2] Whether an inheritor who has granted limited approval includes the purport of seeking non-permission of compulsory execution against the property other than the scope of inherited property in a claim seeking revocation of inherited execution clause or non-permission of compulsory execution based on the title of execution (affirmative)

[1] In case where the qualified acceptance was not revealed even though the inheritor's report on the qualified acceptance was already accepted in granting the inherited execution clause by inheritance, or where the qualified acceptance report is accepted after the inheritance execution clause was granted, the inheritor can only file a lawsuit of objection against the grant of the execution clause to refuse the compulsory execution against the property other than the scope of the inherited property, and it cannot be claimed for the revocation of the succession execution clause itself or for the refusal of the compulsory execution itself based on the execution title.

[2] In a case where an inheritor who has granted limited approval seeks revocation of the inherited execution clause itself or seeks non-permission of the compulsory execution itself based on the enforcement title, a claim shall be deemed to include the purport of seeking non-permission of compulsory execution against the property beyond the scope of inherited property among compulsory execution based on the inherited execution clause.

[1] Article 1019 of the Civil Act, Article 45 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 45 of the Civil Execution Act

Kim Jong-su et al.

Ison-gu

1. On May 3, 200, regarding the original copy of the conciliation protocol No. 2000Gadan2183 as to the defendant's abnormal number of defendants, the above assistant court court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice court's vice

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3.Until a judgment becomes final and conclusive, compulsory execution which is non-permission as described in paragraph 1 above shall be suspended.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 50% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

On May 3, 2002, with respect to the conciliation protocol No. 2000Gadan2183 between the defendant and two or more of the Daejeon District Court, the Daejeon District Court has revoked the succession execution clause granted on May 3, 2002, and the judgment denying compulsory execution based on the original copy of the conciliation protocol.

1. Fact-related relationship;

The following is the fact that the defendant considers the confession under Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On January 10, 2001, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Non-Party 1 as a public official order branch of Daejeon District Court 2000Kadan2183, and the conciliation was concluded that the above Non-Party 1 would pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 14% per annum from November 15, 2000 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff Kim Jong-hee is the wife of the above non-party deceased, and the plaintiff Lee Jae-hee is the child of the above non-party deceased.

Upon the death of the deceased, on May 3, 2002, the defendant applied for the grant of the execution clause to the plaintiffs who are legal successors in the original copy of the above mediation protocol, and the above support court clerk Hong-gu table granted the execution clause to the plaintiffs on the same day.

The Plaintiffs filed an application for qualified acceptance with the Daejeon District Court 2002 Diplomatic Branch 2002Ra71 and received the adjudication on June 17, 2002 on acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance.

2. Determination:

In a case where the qualified acceptance was not revealed even though the inheritor's report on the qualified acceptance was already accepted in granting the inherited execution clause by inheritance, or where the qualified acceptance report is accepted after the inheritance execution clause was granted, the inheritor can only file a lawsuit of objection against the grant of the execution clause and file a claim for refusal of compulsory execution against the property other than the scope of the inherited property, as in the instant case, and it is not possible to seek revocation of the succeeded execution clause itself or seek non-permission of compulsory execution based on the execution title, such as the purport of the instant claim.

However, it is reasonable to view that the purport of the plaintiff's claim of this case is included in the purport of seeking non-permission of compulsory execution against the property beyond the scope of inherited property among compulsory execution based on the inherited execution clause as stated above for the above protocol of mediation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the extent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-ho