1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gaso6089 decided on the Plaintiffs is the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant applied for a payment order against D (hereinafter “the deceased”) by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea157453 (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”).

When the Defendant became aware of the deceased’s death, the Defendant filed a petition with the above court No. 2014 Family Court No. 6056089, and corrected the Defendant’s indication to the Plaintiffs and E as the inheritor of the deceased.

B. On May 1, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 719,265, and the Plaintiff A shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 479,510, respectively, and the Plaintiff E, B, and C shall pay 5% interest per annum from March 28, 2001 to September 24, 2004, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Meanwhile, on October 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs reported the qualified acceptance of the deceased’s property inheritance on December 9, 2014 by the Chuncheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2014-Ma438, which was accepted on October 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit filed by an obligee against an inheritor who inherited the inheritee’s pecuniary obligation, the scope of liability does not appear as subject to a practical adjudication unless the obligor asserts the qualified acceptance, and thus, the scope of liability does not appear as subject to adjudication as well as the reasoning thereof. Therefore, res judicata does not extend to the effect of res judicata.

Therefore, even if an obligor, even though a qualified acceptance was made by the obligor, failed to assert the fact by the time the argument is closed at the trial court in the lawsuit brought by the obligee, and thus no reservation of the scope of liability became final and conclusive, the obligor may thereafter file a lawsuit of demurrer

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23138, Oct. 13, 2006). However, a qualified acceptance is merely a limitation on the scope of an inheritor’s liability, not a limitation on the scope of an inheritor’s liability, and thus, a qualified acceptance trial is conducted.