1. The case concerning the purchase price of goods in the Suwon District Court for the defendant's net E, Leecheon-si Court 2016Gau3385.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) seeking payment of KRW 13,722,000 for the value of the goods and damages for delay. The deceased had already died on April 9, 2016, prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

B. On May 20, 2016, the court of the lawsuit claiming the price of the goods rendered a decision of performance recommendation to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 13,722,00 and the amount at the rate of 15% per annum from May 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.

C. After that, on December 12, 2018, the Defendant received an execution clause succeeding to the said decision of performance recommendation by this court.

Plaintiff

On July 8, 2016, C and A reported renunciation of inheritance as Seoul Family Court Decision 2016 Ma6019, and the above court accepted the above declaration on November 3, 2016. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff B reported inheritance recognition with Seoul Family Court 2016 Ma6020, and the above court accepted the above declaration on September 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] The remarkable facts in this Court, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the compulsory execution based on the above decision of performance recommendation should be denied, since the plaintiff was subject to the adjudication on renunciation of inheritance and the qualified acceptance regarding the deceased's inheritance.

B. First of all, we judge ex officio.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above decision of performance recommendation was made against a person who did not exist without going through the party indication correction procedure when the party died before the party's lawsuit is pending (service of a duplicate of complaint). Thus, the decision of performance recommendation is null and void as it is made against the inheritor.

Therefore, without examining the validity of renunciation of inheritance and qualified acceptance, compulsory execution based on the above decision of performance recommendation cannot be allowed.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are justified.