A. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 38,571,050 for the amount of goods and the amount of delay damages for the said amount, with the Jungyang District Court Decision 2018Ra812, Namyang-si District Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On May 24, 2018, the said court issued a payment order against the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 38,571,050 and the amount of delay damages for the said amount (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. The Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant payment order, and the said payment order was finalized at that time.

C. Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff Company C, etc. as the District Court Decision 2018TTT14529, and collected KRW 16,247,522 from October 15, 2018 to November 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, and the whole purport of the pleading, whether the part of the lawsuit in this case where compulsory execution has been terminated is legitimate

A. Generally, in a case where compulsory execution based on executive titles has been completed as a whole and an obligee has already satisfied, there is no interest in a lawsuit seeking non-permission of such compulsory execution by filing an objection to the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 delivered on April 25, 1997, etc.). In addition, even if a compulsory execution against a part of the amount on the executive title is terminated, there is no benefit of a lawsuit seeking the denial of compulsory execution by means of a lawsuit demanding an objection to the said part, and such part is dismissed, and the propriety of the claim on the merits must be deliberated only on the part on which the execution has yet to be completed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). B.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant applied for a seizure and collection order based on the instant payment order and collected KRW 16,247,52,00 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the above amount is the same.