청구이의
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the original of the judgment with executory power of 2013 Ghana 6473 is denied.
1. Basic facts are: (a) on May 2001, the Plaintiff was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by Nonparty B Co., Ltd., the representative director of which purchased the loan for this Lone Star or 12 passenger cars; (b) on December 2, 2007, the said B Co., Ltd. was dissolved and deemed to have been terminated on December 3, 2010; (c) on October 8, 201, the Plaintiff was determined to grant immunity as 10589 when it was at the Seoul Central District Court on October 8, 2012; and (d) on February 11, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff over the guaranteed debt of the said installment as the Seoul Central District Court No. 6473, Feb. 11, 2014, and became final and conclusive around that time after service by public notice. In addition, the Defendant is recognized to have received a collection order based on the above judgment’s executory title and execution order.
(Evidences submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant). 2. The plaintiff and the defendant each assertion and judgment are made.
A. The Plaintiff asserted that compulsory execution based on the judgment with executory power issued by the Defendant according to the validity of the above final decision of immunity should not be permitted, and filed an objection to the objection.
B. The defendant has a defense that the plaintiff's filing of the objection suit is unlawful because it goes against the binding force of the above judgment which became final and conclusive. However, although the plaintiff was subject to the decision of seizure and collection order based on the result of the defendant's winning judgment, although it was omitted in the creditor list, but the effect (liability exemption) of immunity decision did not affect it, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's filing of the objection suit goes against the res judicata effect of the above judgment is based on the objection suit in order to exclude the enforcement of the above judgment.
C. The defendant argues that the exemption does not extend to the defendant's claim against the plaintiff, because the plaintiff did not enter the claim in bad faith in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of the above claim.