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

A. On November 16, 2006, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Suwon District Court 2006Gapo136416, and received a judgment from the above court that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 10,793,343 won and its amount of 14% per annum from August 30, 1995 to September 28, 1995, 17% per annum from September 29, 195 to October 22, 1995, and 18% per annum from October 23, 1995 (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 13, 2007."

B. On August 21, 2013, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to Suwon District Court B with the title of execution of the judgment stated in the preceding paragraph.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul's evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim established in the judgment of this case is a fraudulent fraudulent claim which has not actually existed, and that is, the same claim after this judgment has been rendered another judgment with the same claim. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be denied and revoked.

B. Determination 1) In a case where an executive title, which is the object of an objection in a lawsuit seeking objection, is a final and conclusive judgment, the grounds should accrue after the date of the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit (in the case of a declaration without pleadings, after the date of rendering a judgment) (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and even if an obligor was unaware of such circumstances and was unable to assert it before the closing of pleadings without fault, such circumstance may not be deemed the grounds for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005). The Plaintiff’s assertion that a claim established in the judgment in the instant case was a fraudulent claim that was a fraudulent claim that was not actually nonexistent prior to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case is apparent by the Plaintiff’s itself.