2. The defendant's successor's request for intervention shall be dismissed;

3. This Court.

A. On November 18, 2003, the Defendant filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff and B with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Ga33474, and on November 18, 2003, the Defendant was jointly and severally sentenced to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) to pay 32,878,794 won and 32,878,770 won among them, 20% per annum from January 20, 199 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from the next day to April 16, 200, 16% per annum from the next day to September 29, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2003.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

On September 27, 2012, the Defendant transferred the principal and interest of a claim based on the instant judgment to the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenor”), and notified the assignment of claims by means of content-certified mail on July 17, 2018, and the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff on July 19, 2018.

C. On July 31, 2018, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was granted the succeeding execution clause with the Defendant’s successor as to the instant judgment by the Seoul Central District Court clerk.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 or 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Where the claim on the executive title regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant is transferred and the requirements for setting up against the transferee are met, the standing to be a party to the execution shall be changed to the transferee, and the execution creditor is finalized as the transferee according to the intention to obtain the succession execution clause. Thus, the execution power of the existing executive title against the transferor shall be extinguished due

Therefore, a subsequent suit of objection filed against a transferor is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, because it is filed against a non-qualified person, or seeks to exclude executive force of executive titles already extinguished.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23889 Decided February 1, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, this case is relevant.