Plaintiff

Defendant

May 30, 2018

1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on February 12, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Ghana967122 Decided February 12, 2014 is denied.

2.To suspend compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of the judgment under paragraph 1 until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 18, 1993, the deceased non-party 1, who was liable for a promissory note amounting to KRW 12,100,000, was deceased, and the non-party 2, his spouse, and the plaintiff and the non-party 3 jointly inherited the property.

B. On December 20, 1993, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of promissory notes against the above co-inheritors on December 20, 1993, which was rendered a favorable judgment, and thereafter filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of promissory notes with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana97122. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. While the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that his age was more than the deceased Nonparty 1’s active property due to the birth in 1986, the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the inheritance obligation against the Defendant only when the Plaintiff’s account was seized by the seizure and collection order around September 2017.

D. The Plaintiff was tried to grant qualified acceptance on November 20, 2017 in the case of the Incheon Family Court’s Vice-Support 2017 Ga-Ma-Ma925 inheritance, which was decided on November 20, 2017. The Plaintiff did not have positive property among the list of inherited property, and the small property is the Defendant’s claim and other unsound debt.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

If an inheritor files a report of qualified acceptance, the liability of a qualified acceptor for the obligation of the inheritee is limited to the inherited property, and as seen above, there is no inherited active property, so compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

With regard to this, the defendant did not apply to the special approval newly established under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, which was amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002, to January 14, 2002. However, among those who became aware of the commencement of inheritance before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act from May 27, 1998 to May 27, 1998, those who did not know of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence and did not report the qualified acceptance before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, by prescribing transitional measures that the qualified acceptance may be made under Article 1019(3) of the amended Civil Act, so that some inheritors falling under the requirements for the commencement of inheritance prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act can be protected. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the qualified acceptance is null and void.

The supplementary clause of the above Civil Code was newly established on December 29, 2005 by Act No. 7765 of Dec. 29, 2005. According to this, although the plaintiff was aware of the commencement of inheritance before May 27, 1998, a person who became aware of the excess of inheritance obligation after the enforcement of the amended Act, without gross negligence, and became aware of the excess of inheritance obligation within the period of Article 1019 (1) (Article 2) can grant special approval pursuant to Article 1019 (3) within 3 months from the date he became aware of the excess of inheritance obligation. According to the facts acknowledged above, while the plaintiff was aware of the commencement of inheritance on February 18, 1993 without gross negligence, after the enforcement of the amended Act, he was seized by the seizure and collection order on May 27, 2017, and became aware of the existence of the obligation to the defendant, and the defendant's assertion that the excess of inheritance obligation was legitimate within 3 months after the enforcement of the amended Act.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

Judges Cho Young-hee