2006 Ghana 81131 Objection

1. Maximum○○;

2. Maximum○○.

Corporation 000

October 18, 2006

November 8, 2006

1. The defendant's compulsory execution based on the Daegu District Court Decision 2004 Ghana118484 against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. Suspension of compulsory execution by means of an executory exemplification of the judgment under paragraph (1) until this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 27, 1997, ○○○ Credit Union loaned KRW 10,00,000 to ○○○○○ on the joint and several guarantee of ○○○ and Jeju○○○○○○○○. However, on August 23, 1999, ○○○○ died, and the Plaintiffs were adjudicated to accept a report of renunciation of inheritance as the deceased’s co-inheritors on October 27, 199 as the Daegu District Court 99Hun-Ba1376. Meanwhile, prior to bankruptcy, 00 credit unions acquired the above loan claims, and 000 new bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against ○○○○○, Daegu District Court 200, and Jeju District Court 118484 against the Plaintiffs and Jeju○○○○○○, which was calculated on the basis of the above new bankruptcy trustee’s 300% interest rate until the date of closing argument, the Plaintiffs did not claim the above 100% interest rate of loans to ○○○, a person with parental authority.

D. Since then, the claim against the above new consultation plaintiffs was transferred to the defendant, and the defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause as a successor to the above new consultation on October 17, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs filed a non-performance of compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiffs on the ground that they renounced inheritance. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs' refusal of inheritance is a ground before the conclusion of arguments at the fact-finding court of this case, and thus, it cannot file a lawsuit of objection, and it goes against the res judicata of the judgment of this case.

B. We examine the case. However, even if the plaintiffs waive their inheritance, and even if they did not assert such fact, the grounds for non-performance of inheritance obligations which could have been asserted before the closing of argument pursuant to the res judicata of the judgment of this case are interrupted. However, the plaintiffs do not allow the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit of objection on the ground of subsequent renunciation of inheritance in accordance with the res judicata of the judgment of this case. First, in our Civil Act, there is a simple approval system that considers that the heir would have granted simple approval if there are certain reasons prescribed in Article 1026 in order to determine inheritance relations, considering that there is concern that the inheritance obligee and subordinate heir would suffer losses, it is difficult to view that the act of not claiming the above facts by the time when the plaintiffs waive their inheritance - defense is merely a passive act, and thus, the act of not claiming the inheritance obligations by the time of the closure of argument in the lawsuit brought by the obligee, and that the inheritance obligee does not have the same effect as the inheritance obligee, even if the inheritance obligee does not have the inherent effect as the inheritance obligee’s waiver of inheritance.

Therefore, the plaintiffs were tried on October 27, 199 to accept the declaration of renunciation of inheritance as the Daegu District Court 99Ra1376 decided October 27, 199, so compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiffs should be dismissed.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted on the grounds of all.

Defendant 1