청구이의
1. The Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na8715 decided April 21, 2015 for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointed C.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) B and the appointed Party C (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the loan claim against the Plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court 2009Kadan93866, and the said court rendered a judgment on September 7, 2010 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 85 million and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from December 30, 2009 to the date of full payment.” However, the Plaintiff appealed on April 21, 201, the said court rendered an appeal with Seoul High Court 2010Na87155, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 76,487,170 and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from June 16, 2006 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “20% per annum”).
B. On May 2, 201, the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 76,487,170, which is the principal of the judgment of this case, to D. D, and D, the receipt stating that “the amount of the award is stipulated as the total amount of principal and interest as to the original of the judgment of this case” (hereinafter “the receipt of this case”).
C. Meanwhile, D died on April 18, 2014, and the Defendants, the inheritor, were granted the succeeding execution clause of the instant judgment on October 28, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the appraisal result of this court's appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings (the defendants asserted that Gap evidence No. 1 was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, without merit)
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff’s obligation to the instant judgment amount against D was fully repaid on May 2, 2011 and extinguished, it shall be deemed that compulsory execution against the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor, shall be dismissed.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.