청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for loans with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Da22045, and the said court served the Plaintiff with a notice of a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading by public notice and served the pleadings on August 11, 2017, and concluded the pleadings on August 11, 2017, the Defendant sentenced the Plaintiff to the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 11,530,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 16, 2017 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment was served on the Plaintiff by public notice and became final and conclusive on August 31, 2017.
B. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff perused the instant judgment, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the instant judgment without filing an appeal for subsequent completion regarding the instant judgment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was granted immunity by filing a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Jeonju District Court No. 2012, 189 and 2012Hadan189. During that process, the Plaintiff did not recognize the Defendant’s claim recognized in the instant judgment and omitted entry in the creditors’ list, and thus, the Defendant’s above claim also has the effect of immunity.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.
B. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit raising an objection is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005).