2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan25255 delivered on September 22, 2014 (Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan25255). However, the defendant is entitled to refuse enforcement as a lawsuit of objection because the defendant filed multiple duplicate claims and transfers part of the claims under the above conciliation protocol to D on September 22, 2014, before the conciliation is established.

2. In the event that the claim on the title of execution in the judgment of this court satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignee, the standing to be the party to the execution shall be changed to the assignee, and the execution obligee becomes the assignee according to the fact that the assignee obtains the succession execution clause, so the existing executive titles in respect of the transferor shall be extinguished

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, etc.). As to the instant case, the Defendant: (a) transferred claims under the instant conciliation protocol to D; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of claims on August 18, 2015; and (c) based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, D was granted an execution clause for succession to the instant conciliation protocol; (b) accordingly, the Defendant’s executive force under the instant conciliation protocol was extinguished upon the grant of succession execution clause.

Therefore, the lawsuit of objection against the defendant is unlawful because it seeks the exclusion of executive force of the title whose executive force has been extinguished, and there is no benefit of protection of rights.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.