1. Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “A person who intends to raise an objection against a claim finalized by a judgment shall file a lawsuit of demurrer with the court of first instance regarding a claim in the judgment.” The main sentence of Article 45 provides that the said provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of succession execution clause. Here, “the court of first instance” refers to the court that rendered the judgment with respect to a claim indicated in the judgment, i.e., a title, that is, a claim to be realized by compulsory execution based on the judgment, and that is, directly divided jurisdiction. Therefore, a lawsuit of objection against the grant of succession to a claim against a judgment rendered by a collegiate panel of a district court is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court that rendered the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da80627, Apr. 7,

2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.

A. Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Treatment Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Automobile Sales”) on the claim for wages, etc. as the Incheon District Court 2010Gahap22084. On January 20, 201, the said court’s collegiate division rendered a favorable judgment by Nonparty 1, etc., and the said judgment (hereinafter “instant final judgment”) became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On October 18, 2009, the Daewoo Motor Sales leased KRW 600,00,000 to the Defendant on October 19, 2010. Nonparty 1, etc., based on the executory exemplification of the final judgment of this case, etc., on the basis of the original copy of the final judgment of this case, determined as follows: (a) on February 15, 201, Incheon District Court 201 calculated as KRW 224,576,594 in total the amount of the Defendant and the third obligor; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the said loan claim amounting to KRW 600,00,000 in total, KRW 224,576,594 in total; and (c) on February 18, 2011, the original copy of the said decision was served on the Defendant and confirmed at that time.

C. Nonparty 1, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Incheon District Court 201Gahap4939, the said court rendered a judgment in favor of Nonparty 1, etc. on September 23, 2011. Nonparty 1, etc. received the amount cited in a partial winning judgment. However, in the case of Seoul High Court 2011Na83891, which is the appellate court, Nonparty 1, etc. withdrawn the lawsuit claiming the collection of the above amount, and the Defendant transferred the wage and retirement allowance claims against the Defendant and its successors according to the final judgment of this case, and delegated the authority to notify the transfer of the claim, and the said settlement recommendation was finalized at that time.

D. Meanwhile, the rehabilitation procedure was commenced on August 10, 201 with respect to the sale of Daewoo Motor. Under the above rehabilitation procedure, three business parts (ba bus sales business division, construction business division, and consignment development business division) were divided, and bus sales business division and construction business division newly incorporated separate companies, and maintained the remaining company by dividing only the transmission and wholesale development business division. The Plaintiff Daewoo Motor Sales Co., Ltd. (formerly, Self-Employed Motor Sales Co., Ltd.), the Plaintiff Daewoo Industrial Development Co., Ltd. was established, divided into bus sales business and construction business division, and the name of the Samsung Motor Sales Co., Ltd. was changed to the name of the Daewoo Motor. The rehabilitation plan was approved on December 9, 2011.

E. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant succeeded to the obligation of Daewoo Motor Sales, and filed an application for the granting of the execution clause to the succession of the instant final judgment with the Plaintiffs as the successors to the sale of Daewoo Motor Sales by asserting that the Defendant succeeded to the claim against Nonparty 1, etc... The chief clerk of the Incheon District Court granted the succession execution clause (hereinafter “instant succession execution clause”) to the Plaintiffs as the successors to the sale of Daewoo Motor Sales.

F. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of the instant succession execution clause with the Incheon District Court, and a single judge of the Incheon District Court rendered the judgment of the first instance on January 8, 2014.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the final judgment of this case was rendered by the collegiate division of the Incheon District Court, the lawsuit of objection against the grant of the instant succession to this case belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the collegiate division of the Incheon District Court. Nevertheless, the lower court revoked the judgment of the first instance and accepted the claim of the Plaintiffs, citing the legal principles as to exclusive jurisdiction.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)