beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground of the attached loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), etc. against the Plaintiff, seeking the payment of the guaranteed debt (hereinafter “the prior suit of this case”) from the Chuncheon District Court Branching 2013Kadan1954.
B. In the previous suit of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant had the Defendant sign and seal on the loan certificate of this case with no legal effect, and thus, the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability is not constituted.” However, the said court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, and on March 24, 2015, rendered a judgment to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 45,00,000 and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from June 25, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive after the Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are not only forged with the loan certificate of this case, but also the plaintiff did not have a joint and several surety as stated in the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the judgment of the prior suit of this case should not be allowed.
However, in a case where an executive title, which is the object of an objection in a lawsuit seeking objection, is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should have arisen after the closure of pleadings in the lawsuit, and even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstances without fault and failed to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier may not be the ground for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005). The above ground alleged by the plaintiff is based on such assertion, and thus, the ground for objection arising before the closure of arguments in the previous lawsuit is a legitimate ground for objection.