1. Compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gadan292604 against the defendant's net C is a compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2006, the Defendant filed a loan claim suit against C with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da292604, KRW 100 million, and KRW 20% interest per annum from November 1, 2006 to the date of full payment, and was sentenced to a judgment in favor of all of the pleadings on December 20, 206. The judgment became final and conclusive on January 12, 2007.

B. After that, C died on December 28, 2007, and C’s spouse and children renounced their inheritance, and C’s spouse and children jointly inherited their inherited property by the Plaintiff, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, both of whom are the brothers and sisters or substitute inheritors, and the Plaintiff’s inherited shares are 1/4.

C. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff did not have C’s active property in the list of inherited property, and the small property is a debt amounting to approximately KRW 258,00,000 based on the instant judgment against K, and filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance with Seoul Family Court 2014Ra9248. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to the said court’s judgment on the acceptance of the report on the qualified acceptance.

On the other hand, on May 30, 2014, the Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause to the Plaintiff, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, who is a sibling of C or his substitute heir. A certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was served on January 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In the inheritance of the Plaintiff’s assertion C’s property, a qualified acceptance report was accepted, and there is no active property inherited from C. Therefore, compulsory execution of the instant judgment should be denied.

B. Even if a qualified acceptance was made, the liability is limited to the scope of inherited property, and the debt itself does not extinguish, seeking the exclusion of executive titles from general executory power on the ground of qualified acceptance is not allowed, and it is possible to seek an exclusion of executive power in the sense that the scope of executive power is limited to inherited property.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff succeeds to the property of the deceased C.