beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Suwon District Court case No. 2016 Ghana76197 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 3, 2016, the deceased C (the last address: Ansan-si D; hereinafter “the deceased”) died. On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s heir, filed a qualified acceptance report with the Suwon District Court Branch 2016Ra233 on February 23, 2016, and the said court accepted the said report on June 9, 2016 (hereinafter “instant qualified acceptance”).
B. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to some favorable rulings (hereinafter “the instant loan judgment”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 14,99,999 won within the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased and at the rate of 34.9% per annum from May 28, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 23, 2016.
C. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant loan judgment, received a seizure and collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in attached Table 1 against the Plaintiff E and F Co., Ltd., as the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2017TTT 100825, and (2) on January 11, 2018, as the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2018TT 10087, respectively, issued a seizure and collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in attached Table 2 against G.
In addition, on July 4, 2018, based on the instant loan ruling, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached Table 3 list as H of the Daejeon District Court’s Y.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3-10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, although the insurance termination refund of E, which is the inherited property of the deceased, is merely KRW 3,394,581, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant loan judgment regarding the Plaintiff’s claim on the attached list No. 1, which is the Plaintiff’s inherent property, should not be allowed. 2) According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased pursuant to the instant qualified acceptance.