beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009Da69419 Decided December 7, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 14, 2003, the Plaintiff’s husband C borrowed money from the Defendant and stated the borrower as “the Plaintiff, the borrower, and the guarantor,” and written a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the seals affixed to the borrower and the guarantor’s name and affixed them.
B. On March 5, 2007, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s above claim in the creditor list and was granted immunity on July 12, 2007 by filing a bankruptcy immunity application with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2007Hadan9800, 2007da98000. The above decision (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”) became final and conclusive on July 27, 2007.
C. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant on May 13, 2009 seeking "10,000,000 won and damages for delay" as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009Da69419, and won in favor of the defendant on December 7, 2009, and "the above judgment" is "the above judgment".
(D) Around that time, the Plaintiff tried to enforce compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment at issue against the Defendant on May 16, 2018. The Defendant was issued the original copy of the judgment at issue on May 30, 2018, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on June 18, 2018, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that he did not file an appeal which was neglected within the 14-day period for subsequent completion of appeal. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the above number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the loan certificate of this case was prepared between the plaintiff's husband and the defendant without the plaintiff's consent, and that compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be allowed since the plaintiff's liability for the loan claim based on the loan certificate of this case was exempted according to the decision of immunity of this case.
As to this, the defendant is the husband of the plaintiff.