1. The Seoul Eastern District Court is a final and conclusive judgment rendered between the defendant and D Co., Ltd.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is recognized that the reasons for the claim are stated in attached

Therefore, the plaintiff is a successor to the claim based on the judgment of the case entered in the order. Thus, the junior administrative officer, etc. of this court is obligated to grant the plaintiff a succession execution clause to the plaintiff who is a successor to the D Co., Ltd. in order to have the plaintiff enforce compulsory

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the defendant's obligation cannot be recognized, but it is not permissible to simply assert the grounds for objection regarding the claim in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a lawsuit for objection to the claim, which is limited to the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of succession in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087 Decided April 13, 2012). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.