The part concerning the principal lawsuit shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

This part of the case.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the claim of the principal lawsuit

A. Where an executive title is a notarial deed, a lawsuit of demurrer against such claim shall belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court located in the location of the debtor’s general forum (Article 59(4) main text and Article 21 of the Civil Execution Act), and Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to lawsuits for which an exclusive jurisdiction has been determined (Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act)

The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The address of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is “Seoul Songpa-gu F building, 301,” and the seat of the principal office of the Plaintiff Cyn F&W Co., Ltd. is “Seoul Songpa-gu G, 236-1, 1st floor.”

(2) On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) with the Seoul Eastern District Court having jurisdiction over their domicile, that “The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay promissory notes based on the instant notarial deed against the Defendant is not nonexistent.” On December 1, 2015, the said court rendered a decision to transfer the instant principal suit to the Seoul Northern District Court having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s domicile, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

(3) Accordingly, on March 2, 2016, the principal lawsuit of this case was received by the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court), the first instance court, as the Seoul Northern District Court. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs’ legal representative stated that, on the date of the first instance court’s pleading, the complaint was filed, and subsequently, the Defendant stated that “it shall not be subject to compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiffs” was changed to “the Defendant’s filing of the complaint,” and the Defendant did not raise any objection thereto.

(4) Following the closure of pleadings on August 19, 2016, the first instance court concluded a compulsory execution based on the instant authentic deeds against the Plaintiffs of the Defendant pursuant to the amended purport of the claim on September 9, 2016.