청구이의
1. The Defendant’s subdivision of the Daegu District Court to the Plaintiff is based on the Decision 2015 Ghana303254 Decided September 18, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming for the payment of management expenses, etc. of the instant vehicle B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the Seogu District Court Branch Branch.
B. On September 18, 2015, the above court accepted the Defendant’s claim and sentenced the Plaintiff to jointly and severally with C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,101,090 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 21, 2015 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the subject judgment”).
C. Accordingly, on November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,671,627, including the amount that the Defendant received from the Defendant a detailed statement of unpaid management expenses, etc. of the instant vehicle and ordered payment in the subject judgment.
On the following day, the plaintiff withdrawn an appeal against the judgment (Tgu District Court 2015Na307683), and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, a claim, such as management expenses, etc. concerning the instant vehicle by the defendant who ordered payment in the judgment, is deemed to have been fully repaid KRW 7,671,627 as a payment to the defendant in excess of the cited amount in the judgment on November 3, 2015.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment can not be allowed.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that, even after the plaintiff made repayment on November 3, 2015, the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the vehicle of this case was not implemented, and since the unpaid amount, such as management expenses and insurance premiums, continues to occur, compulsory execution based on the judgment shall be maintained until all of them are resolved.
However, as seen earlier, the money ordered to be paid was fully repaid, and the content claimed by the defendant exceeds the cited scope of the judgment.