2. Daejeon District Court 2018Kadan210 Concerning the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28420, Nov. 1, 201

A. On January 19, 2017, the Defendant lent KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff.

On December 7, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with this Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the said money under this Court No. 2017 tea7219.

B. On December 8, 2017, this Court issued a payment order citing the Defendant’s motion.

On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the above payment order, and thereafter raised an objection on the 15th of the same month.

Accordingly, the above payment order case was referred to the litigation procedure by 2017 Ghana82721.

C. The Plaintiff did not appear at all on the date of pleading two or more times in the said litigation proceedings.

On August 21, 2018, this Court rendered a favorable judgment with the purport that "the defendant (the plaintiff in this case) shall pay to the plaintiff (the plaintiff in this case) 5 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from December 13, 2017 to the date of full payment."

The foregoing judgment was served on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2018, but became final and conclusive on September 19, 2017 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to appeal.

(hereinafter referred to as “relevant judgment” or “related litigation”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 30, 2017, before the filing of the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 5 million to the Defendant via C, who is the Defendant’s seat.

Since the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff were extinguished due to repayment, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above judgment shall be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit raising an objection is a final and conclusive judgment, an objection in relation to the res judicata can be raised only to the situations that arise after the conclusion of the pleadings at the fact-finding court of the relevant lawsuit, and the circumstances that arise earlier than such a final and conclusive judgment cannot be deemed as the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 delivered on May 27, 2005, etc.)(b).

In light of the above legal principles, even if following the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff.