청구이의
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Where the transferee is granted the succeeding execution clause due to the transfer of the right of claim on the executive title, the transferee is changed to the transferee, and the execution creditor becomes the transferee, so the existing executive title on the transferor is extinguished due to the grant of the succeeding execution clause, and only the transferee has the standing to file an objection against the claim;
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the final payment order for the loan loan case No. 201j3228 against the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff is not liable for the Defendant’s obligation to refund the loan amount of KRW 30 million against the Defendant, and thus, excluded the enforcement force of the above payment order.
However, as the plaintiff is also the person, it is recognized that the claim based on the above payment order has been transferred to D and D has been granted succession execution clause.
As above, since the Defendant’s enforcement force of the payment order against the Plaintiff was extinguished according to the receipt of the execution clause succeeded by D, a suit of objection filed against the Defendant is filed against a non-qualified person, or seek to exclude the enforcement force of the title of debt already extinguished, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
[On the other hand, according to the investigation results of the case in which the plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint against the defendant, and the notice of mail delivery, etc., the plaintiff and the defendant introduced the plaintiff's Dong C to the defendant on February 2, 2006, which led the defendant to transfer KRW 28.5 million to the head of Tong E. On or around December 2, 2010, the plaintiff and C directly prepared a monetary loan contract, which is the basis for the above payment order, and each of the facts that the payment order was delivered directly to the plaintiff on May 17, 2011 is confirmed, and even in this case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff is not liable to the plaintiff on the money loan contract.