1. Based on the decision of the Incheon District Court Branch 2015 Ghana31045, the Defendant made a recommendation for reconciliation against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff, D, and E, who was the heir of the deceased C, was subject to the inheritance limited approval judgment at the Seoul Family Court, and the deceased’s active property indicated in the list of inherited property at the time is equivalent to KRW 4,981,059-5,981,059 in total, such as the shares and deposits in real property located in the south-gun of Gangwon-do, and the passive property was approximately KRW 69,536,297 in total.

B. On April 29, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, D, and E, who was the heir of the network C, with the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court (2015 Ghana31045). On April 29, 2016, a ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive that “within the scope of property inherited from the network C to the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 857,142 and its delay damages.”

C. The defendant is the above A.

On July 26, 2016, this Court issued an enforcement title on July 26, 2016, which was based on the enforcement title stated in the paragraph, seizure of movables listed in the attached list, which were the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the 201st floor, the Plaintiff’s residence, was executed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, compulsory execution against movables listed in the separate sheet, based on the decision of recommending settlement of the above case where the Defendant ordered the Defendant to perform a monetary obligation only “within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C”, shall be dismissed as it is limited to the Plaintiff’s own property.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that D, the father and heir of the deceased, expressed his/her intent to repay the deceased’s debt to the Defendant, but it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion solely with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above assertion shall not be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.