Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Succession to party status belongs to an objection to enforcement title issuance
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2025Da218671 (judgment)
Case name: 청구이의[상속포기를 이유로 피상속인에 대한 확정판결에 기한 강제집행의 불허를 구하는 사안]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a creditor obtained successive enforcement titles against a debtor's heirs but the heirs had renounced the inheritance within the statutory period, must the question of succession to party status be examined in an action objecting to enforcement that seeks to exclude the force of the final judgment?
Holding
No. Whether the plaintiffs succeeded to the deceased's status as debtor is a matter concerning a requirement for the issuance of an enforcement title, so it must be raised and examined in an action concerning the issuance of an enforcement title or an action objecting to it, not in an action objecting to enforcement. Where a creditor has obtained successive enforcement titles against the debtor's heirs but the heirs renounced the inheritance within the statutory period and so lack the qualification to succeed, the heirs may seek exclusion of the effect of the enforcement copy by applying under Article 34 of the Civil Execution Act for an objection to the issuance of an enforcement title, or by bringing an action objecting to it under Article 45 of the same Act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
집행문부여의 요건인 당사자 지위 승계 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The question of whether there has been a succession to a party's status, which is a requirement for the issuance of an execution clause, is a matter to be asserted and examined in an action for the issuance of an execution clause, or an action raising objection to the issuance of an execution clause, in connection with the issuance of an execution clause, and is not a matter to be examined in an action raising objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the title of execution by asserting an objection arising in connection with the claim indicated in the title of execution.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
집행문부여의 요건인 당사자 지위 승계 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The question of whether there has been a succession to a party's status, which is a requirement for the issuance of an execution clause, is a matter to be asserted and examined in an action for the issuance of an execution clause, or an action raising objection to the issuance of an execution clause, in connection with the issuance of an execution clause, and is not a matter to be examined in an action raising objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the title of execution by asserting an objection arising in connection with the claim indicated in the title of execution.
Factors
- 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.
- 채권자가 채무자의 상속인들에 대하여 승계집행문을 부여받았으나 상속인들이 적법한 기간 내에 상속을 포기함으로써 승계적격이 없는 경우에
- 상속인들은 집행정본의 효력 배제를 구하는 방법으로서 민사집행법 제34조의 집행문부여에 관한 이의신청을 하거나
- 같은 법 제45조의 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소를 제기할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
• is not a matter to be examined in an action raising objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the title of execution by asserting an objection arising in connection with the claim indicated in the title of execution.
• in a case where a creditor has been granted an execution clause of succession against the debtor's heirs, but the heirs are not eligible for succession because they renounced the inheritance within the lawful period,
• the heirs may, as a means of seeking exclusion of the effect of the duplicate of the enforcement copy, file an application raising objection under Article 34 of the Civil Execution Act concerning the issuance of an execution clause, or
• may bring an action raising objection to the issuance of an execution clause under Article 45 of the same Act.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011다92916 판결, 대법원 2016. 8. 18. 선고 2014다225038 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da92916 decided April 13, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da225038 decided August 18, 2016, etc.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2003. 2. 14. 선고 2002다64810 판결(공2003상, 806), 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011다92916 판결(공2012상, 783), 대법원 2016. 8. 18. 선고 2014다225038 판결(공2016하, 1340)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Once the heirs raise the renunciation in an objection under Article 34 or an action under Article 45, what standard decides whether the enforcement copy's effect is excluded, and on what timing?
A judgment of the Gwangju High Court on remand deciding the succession question would show how the distinction between the two procedures works in practice. Any amendment to Articles 31, 34, 44 or 45 of the Civil Execution Act, or a later decision on whether renunciation of inheritance defeats succession to party status or on the timing of an objection, would call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Once the heirs raise the renunciation in an objection under Article 34 or an action under Article 45, what standard decides whether the enforcement copy's effect is excluded, and on what timing?” vs Independent “When must a court clarify whether a claim labeled as an objection to the underlying claim is intended as an objection to issuance of the execution clause?”
The primary reading asks about standards and timing for excluding the enforcement copy's effect, while the independent reading asks when the court must clarify the intended type of action.
집행문부여의 요건인 당사자 지위 승계 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 1 October 2025 (2025Na20009), accepted the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the plaintiffs had renounced the inheritance of the deceased within the period set by Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act and therefore did not bear the deceased's debt under the final judgment. It ordered that the defendant's enforcement of the final judgment with force against the plaintiffs be disallowed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that whether the plaintiffs failed to succeed to the deceased's status as debtor because they renounced the inheritance concerns a requirement for the issuance of an enforcement title, and must be examined in an action objecting to the issuance of an enforcement title or the like, not in an action seeking to exclude the force of the final judgment. It held that the judgment below misstated the law on the grounds of objection and the matters to be examined in such an action, and that this error affected the outcome. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court for retrial, unanimously, without addressing the grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the asserted defence concerns the claim shown on the enforcement title itself, since the Court confined the rule to matters of succession to party status.
- An objection to the issuance of an enforcement title under Article 34 of the Civil Execution Act, or an action objecting to it under Article 45 of the same Act, where succession to party status is properly at issue.
- Heirs who did not renounce the inheritance within the period of Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, so that they retain the qualification to succeed.
Record verification notes
Check that the enforcement copy at issue is a successive enforcement title obtained on 22 August 2018, 25 October 2021 or 30 October 2023, and that the report of renunciation was filed on 25 October 2023 and accepted on 15 November 2023. Then confirm which vehicle the file uses, an objection under Article 34 of the Civil Execution Act or an action under Article 45 of the same Act, because this decision decided only which procedure may hear the succession question. The final judgment itself was rendered by the Gwangju District Court on 29 April 2004 (2003Gahap7069) and became final in its original form.
From the official text
Points at issue
집행문부여의 요건인 당사자 지위 승계 여부가 집행권원의 집행력 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항인지 여부(소극) / 채권자가 채무자의 상속인들에 대하여 승계집행문을 부여받았으나 상속인들이 적법한 기간 내에 상속을 포기함으로써 승계적격이 없는 경우, 상속인들이 집행정본의 효력 배제를 구하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Whether the question of whether there has been a succession to a party's status, which is a requirement for the issuance of an execution clause, is a matter to be examined in an action raising objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of a title of execution (negative) / Where a creditor has been granted an execution clause of succession against the debtor's heirs, but the heirs are not eligible for succession because they renounced the inheritance within the lawful period, the method by which the heirs may seek exclusion of the effect of the duplicate of the enforcement copy
Summary of the holding
집행문부여의 요건인 당사자 지위 승계 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다. 채권자가 채무자의 상속인들에 대하여 승계집행문을 부여받았으나 상속인들이 적법한 기간 내에 상속을 포기함으로써 승계적격이 없는 경우에 상속인들은 집행정본의 효력 배제를 구하는 방법으로서 민사집행법 제34조의 집행문부여에 관한 이의신청을 하거나 같은 법 제45조의 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소를 제기할 수 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Provisions referred to
민사집행법 제31조, 제34조, 제44조, 제45조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger