청구이의
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. As to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was made against the Plaintiff as the obligee for the remaining purchase price of B apartment Nos. 102 and 403 located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu. The Defendant filed a claim for payment order against the Plaintiff under the High Government District Court Decision 2014Hu9782, Goyang-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan-gu, the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment order against the Plaintiff. In addition, even though the said claim was rejected, the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment against the Plaintiff under the Court Decision 2015Gahap72019. The Plaintiff did not receive unreasonable collateral loans for the purchase of the said apartment and did not redeem interest, and the cause for the sale of the said apartment by auction was not paid to the Defendant due to the failure to pay the remaining purchase price to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is clearly stated to the purport that the compulsory execution against the Plaintiff should not be denied until the time of such unlawful execution against the Plaintiff.
However, a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim refers to a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of executory power by asserting the substantive reasons as to a claim indicated in the executive title, such as a final and conclusive judgment by the debtor, etc. (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act).
An order for payment has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection, a withdrawal of an objection, or a decision of rejection becomes final and conclusive (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since an order for payment in an uncertain state cannot serve as an effective executive title, a lawsuit of objection may not be filed against a claim seeking the exclusion of executory power (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da70012 Decided November 15, 2012). In this case, the order for payment for which the plaintiff seeks the suspension of its enforcement was dismissed is the same as the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant raised the same content as the defendant.