1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant (appointed party) that exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against L and K for the claim for the refund of down payment, etc. with Suwon District Court 2005da4993, the Plaintiff was sentenced on June 1, 2005, that “L and K jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 7, 2005 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2005.

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

L dead on April 15, 2005 (hereinafter “the deceased”), B, the wife, succeeded to 3/9 shares, and 2/9 shares, respectively, by the Defendant, Appointor C, and E, who are children.

C. K also died on December 23, 2012, and the wife F inherited 3/11 shares, and the co-defendant G, H, I, and J inherited 2/11 shares, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) are the inheritors of the Deceased, etc., who are obligated to perform their obligations based on the final judgment of this case.

B. Defendant 1) Since the Plaintiff forged a sales contract between the deceased and received the final and conclusive judgment of this case, the Plaintiff cannot claim against the Defendant, etc. for the performance of obligations pursuant to the above final and conclusive judgment. 2) The Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of real estate for the designated party E’s inherent property with the execution clause of succession to the final and conclusive judgment of this case, but the above succession execution clause was revoked in excess of the scope of inherited property by the objection of E, and thus the lawsuit of this case

3 Even if not, the defendant et al. was tried to approve the inheritance of the deceased's inherited property, and thus, the defendant et al. is liable only within the scope of the above inherited property.

3. According to the above-mentioned basic facts as to the cause of the claim, there is a special reason.