beta
Text
1. The defendant on April 16, 2013 to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C as to each land listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Selection Party C purchased each land in the separate sheet from D to KRW 85,000,000.
B. D The deceased on September 2, 2014, and E and F, his/her sole heir’s children, gave up their inheritance. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant, who was the Defendant, filed a report on qualified acceptance of inheritance with the Suwon District Court 2014Mo2637, supra, was accepted on January 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of the determination, the defendant, the heir of the above deceased, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on each land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff and the selected party C.
[Qualified acceptance of inheritance is merely a restriction on the scope of liability, rather than a limitation on the existence of an obligation, so long as it is recognized that a qualified acceptance of inheritance exists even in cases where a qualified acceptance of inheritance is recognized, the court shall pronounce a judgment on the performance of the obligation in whole, even if the inherited property does not exist or the inherited property is insufficient to repay the inherited obligation: Provided, That inasmuch as such obligation has a character not to enforce compulsory execution against the inheritor’s inherent property, it is necessary to specify the purport that the execution may be conducted only within the scope of the inherited property in the text of the judgment on performance to restrict executory power. However, in the claim of this case to transfer ownership of a specific property which is an inherited property, not a substitute claim, not a claim for the payment of a substitute, there is no risk of enforcing compulsory execution against the Defendant’s inherent property even if