beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s conciliation as of November 29, 2012 in the Gwangju District Court 2012Gahap376 case against F.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 177,400,000 for goods to F and G as Gwangju District Court Branch 2012Gahap376, the Defendant jointly and severally. On November 29, 2012, the court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation such as “F shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 108,610,000 and its delay damages” (hereinafter “instant decision”). The instant decision became final and conclusive as it is.
(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 2). (b)
The F died on September 23, 2013, and on November 21, 2013, the Plaintiffs and G, who are the deceased F’s co-inheritors, were issued a judgment that accepted the report on the qualified acceptance of inheritance on December 26, 2013, with the Gwangju Family Court’s Maritime Court’s 2013-Mano265.
(A) Evidence No. 2) (c)
On July 4, 2014, the Defendant obtained the original copy of the instant decision with the title of execution and received a seizure and collection order as to each of the claims listed in the separate sheet in the name of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant claim”) from the Gwangju District Court, Gwangju District Court, Maritime District Court, 2014TTT1617, Oct. 31, 2014.
(A) Evidence No. 5 (Evidence 5) / [Evidence 1] Evidence No. 1, 2, 4-1, 2, and 5 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The inheritor who reported the qualified acceptance as to the causes of the plaintiffs' claims is obligated to repay the inheritee's obligations to the extent of the inherited property.
(Article 1028 and Article 1029 of the Civil Act). Therefore, since the claim in this case does not belong to the defendant's liability property based on the report on qualified acceptance as the plaintiffs' proprietary property, the defendant's compulsory execution (hereinafter "the compulsory execution in this case") as seen in the part of the basic facts is not permissible, and the plaintiffs can seek the exclusion of the execution.
3. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff D obtained a fishery right from the networkF and operates the aquaculture under its own name, and the remaining plaintiffs also transfer the fishery right.