1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiffs by the Busan District Court Decision 2005Gaso382090 is enforced by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a claim for a loan against D and E by asserting that “The Plaintiff’s mother was holding a claim for the loan amounting to KRW 8,750,000 against D, and the husband of D was jointly and severally guaranteed by E. However, D and E died on August 31, 2005, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs, who were children of the network D, as Busan District Court Decision 2005Ga382090.

On June 23, 2006, the above case was proceeded by public notice, and the above court rendered a judgment citing the defendant's claim.

B. On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an adjudication on the qualified acceptance of the qualified acceptance on July 9, 2010 after having filed an application for adjudication on the limited acceptance of inheritance with the Busan District Court 2010-Ma1218.

Since then, the plaintiffs filed an application for correction of adjudication with the Busan Family Court 2014 businessz386 on the ground that the defendant's claim was omitted in the debt list of the above inheritance approval case, and the above court made a decision to accept it on December 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that, on April 20, 2010, the compulsory execution based on the instant judgment ought to be denied, the Plaintiffs filed an application for a judgment on limited recognition of inheritance with the Busan District Court 2010-Ma1218, which was rendered on July 9, 2010.

B. In a lawsuit brought by a judgment obligee against an inheritor who inherited the inheritee’s monetary obligation, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of adjudication if the obligor does not assert the fact of qualified acceptance, and thus, the scope of liability does not appear as a subject of adjudication as well as the reasoning thereof does not affect res judicata.

Therefore, even if the debtor grants a qualified acceptance, there is no reservation on the scope of liability because he/she did not assert the fact by the time the fact-finding proceedings are closed.