logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2015나9216
제3자이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D filed a lawsuit of purchase price claim against the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff’s husband, and F, the Plaintiff’s fraud, Busan District Court Branch 2003Gahap1259, and on December 18, 2003, the court rendered a judgment on “the deceased and F shall jointly and severally pay D KRW 56 million and delay damages to D” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 6, 2004.

B. On October 21, 2007, the Defendant, as a successor of D, obtained the execution clause of succession to the instant judgment against D’s deceased and F on October 21, 2007, and conducted attachment execution on April 1, 2008 with the executory exemplification of the said judgment as Busan District Court Branch Branch 2008No622, Apr. 1, 2008.

C. After that, the deceased died on July 21, 201, the Defendant issued an execution clause against the Plaintiff, J, K, L, and M, who is the inheritor of the deceased, on September 18, 2014, to the inheritance execution clause against the instant judgment. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction order against the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Dong Branch C of the Busan District Court, Busan District Court, and received a compulsory auction order on the same day.

On October 14, 2014, the heir, including the Plaintiff, filed a report on the inheritance of the deceased’s property with the Busan Family Court Decision 2014Ra3532 on November 20, 2014 to accept the said report on November 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property at the time of the death of the Plaintiff, and was served with the Defendant’s execution clause of succession from the Busan District Court’s branch branch on September 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff on September 18, 2014, and was legally tried by filing a qualified acceptance report on the inheritance of the deceased with the Busan Family Court.

arrow