1. The Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court 2012j2802) against the defendant's network D is the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a claim against the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) for a payment order claiming the payment of loans of KRW 30 million and delay damages therefor at this court’s 201th and 2802. On May 24, 2012, this court issued the instant payment order to the deceased on June 1, 2012, and issued the payment order in the same manner as the said application, and the said payment order was served on the deceased on June 1, 2012, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on the 16th of the same month.

B. After that, the deceased died on January 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs, who were their successors, reported to the Suwon District Court on February 19, 2014 the inheritance-limited approval of the inheritance-limited recognition and received the repair adjudication from the said court on April 10, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on November 5, 2014, the Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause (hereinafter “instant succeeding execution clause”) with respect to the instant payment order from the senior court clerk E of the court as the deceased’s successor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence 1, 2, 3, and Gap 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In case where the qualified acceptance has not been revealed even though a report on the qualified acceptance by an inheritor has already been accepted in granting the succeeded execution clause by inheritance, or where a report on the qualified acceptance has been accepted after the grant of the succeeded execution clause, the inheritor may file a lawsuit of objection against the grant of the execution clause, and request the denial of the compulsory execution against the property other than the scope of the inherited property.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, since the execution clause of succession of this case was not reflected in the plaintiffs' report of approval of the inheritance limit of the deceased as the deceased, even though the report of approval of succession limit was accepted, compulsory execution based on the execution clause of this case shall be allowed only within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased, and the exceeding part shall be dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.