[집행문부여에대한이의청구사건][고집1970민(1),218]
Any person who is entitled to raise an objection to the granting of the succeeded execution clause.
If an execution clause has been granted to a successor to a creditor, only the original debtor may bring a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of the execution clause by alleging that there is no succession, and the creditor or successor creditor may not bring a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of the execution clause in this case.
Article 506 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da1090 Delivered on May 22, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 1044Da1044, Decision No. 506(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision No. 1044)
Plaintiff, Ltd.
Defendant
Daegu District Court of First Instance (69A461 delivered on January 1, 200)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
On May 30, 1966, the compulsory execution based on the execution clause (Succession Execution Clause) granted by Nonparty 2 to the Defendant on August 12, 1967 shall not be permitted on the original copy of the judgment rendered on May 30, 1966, for which the Daegu District Court 65Ga1826 claim was filed between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 and two others.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is that the Plaintiff Company filed a claim against Nonparty 1, 3, and 4 for the payment of the purchase price claim against the Daegu District Court 65Ga1826, and obtained a favorable judgment that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays KRW 1,068,967 to the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive. The Defendant was dismissed from the representative director of the Plaintiff Company as of July 1, 1967, and was issued KRW 78,967 from Nonparty 5, who was dismissed from the office of representative director of the Plaintiff Company, for the Defendant on August 12, 1967, and it was found that Nonparty 2, who was the applicant, granted the said support for the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant (the order of the presiding judge), but this did not meet the requirements for granting the inheritance execution clause, and thus, it was in the instant lawsuit to be revoked.
On the other hand, when the execution clause has been granted to the creditor's successor, the former debtor (in this case, only the non-party 1, 3, and 4) can bring an action of demurrer against the grant of the execution clause by asserting that there is no succession, and the creditor or the successor creditor cannot bring an action of objection against the grant of the execution clause of this case in light of the purport of Articles 483 and 484 of the Civil Procedure Act, so there is no lawsuit of objection against the grant of the execution clause of this case brought by the plaintiff who is the creditor.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.
It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)