1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant against Busan District Court Decision 97Da57043 delivered on September 4, 1997 is enforced by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 1997, the defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a contract amount of KRW 15 million against C, D, and E with Busan District Court Decision 97Da57043, Busan District Court Decision 97Da57043, and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the entire decision made by the constructive confession (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”). The judgment was finalized on September 30, 1997.

B. Upon the death of C on July 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on May 2, 2014, granted the succeeded execution clause to F, G, H, and Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased; and (b) on March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff was served with a certified copy of the succeeded execution clause on March 18, 2014.

C. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, along with F, G, and H, did not have active property in the list of inherited property and filed a report on the fixed acceptance of inheritance with the Busan Family Court 2014-Ma1151, indicating that there was an obligation based on the instant judgment. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the said court’s ruling on the acceptance of the report on the qualified acceptance.

As the Defendant commenced compulsory execution procedures against the Plaintiff’s property based on the above succession execution clause, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and received a decision to suspend compulsory execution on January 29, 2015 by this Court 2015Kao226.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that, since the deceased's inheritance limited approval was granted to the deceased C, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be allowed only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, and that part exceeding the scope should be rejected.

As to this, the defendant asserts that ① at the time of the report of qualified acceptance, the plaintiff intentionally failed to enter the deceased’s active property in the list of property at the time of the report of qualified acceptance, ② The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not grant qualified acceptance or renunciation within three months from the time of the commencement of inheritance, because he/she knew or could have easily known that he/she was liable for the deceased’

3. Determination

A. The assertion of omission in the list of property.