1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff except the above dismissed part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was born on the F date between father D (Death on January 2005) and mother E.

B. Although the Defendant paid insurance money, such as medical expenses, to the victim of the traffic accident caused by D in violation of D's duty of safe driving, on the ground that D's death on January 20, 2005, filed a lawsuit of claim for reimbursement of reimbursement amount against the Plaintiff and G, the Daejeon District Court 2008Gadan5056, and rendered a judgment on June 18, 2008 that "the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff and G) shall pay to each Plaintiff (referring to the Defendant) KRW 15,314,855, and damages for delay from August 28, 2007."

(hereinafter “The judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”). In the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s legal representative was represented by the Plaintiff who was a minor at the time when E was the mother of parental authority, and the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit became final and conclusive on July 17, 2008.

C. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s legal representative, parent, on behalf of the Plaintiff, stated the net D’s obligation to the Defendant in the list of inherited property by filing a report of qualified acceptance with Red Family Court 2016-Ma144, on behalf of the Plaintiff, as a passive property. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to accept the report of qualified acceptance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not live with the mother who is a legal representative until now, and was unaware of the existence of the judgment; (b) the Plaintiff was responsible for performing D’s obligations only within the scope of the property inherited from D upon the commencement of inheritance as qualified acceptance; and (c) the Plaintiff did not have any property inherited from D; and (d) the Defendant’s compulsory execution compelling the performance of the inheritance obligation without any restriction is unreasonable.

3. The Plaintiff’s legal status is uneasy, ex officio, determining whether the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the instant lawsuit is lawful.