The Seoul Western District Court 2014 Ghana701805 case between Defendant and D (Before merger: E).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (Before the merger: E; hereinafter “D”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Seoul Western District Court 2014 Ghana701805, and the same court rendered a judgment on March 12, 2015 that “the Defendant shall pay damages for delay to KRW 4,625,868 and its KRW 1,265,180” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff, around February 27, 2019, transferred claims based on the instant judgment from D to the Defendant, and sent a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant, but did not reach the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act, an execution clause may be granted for a successor of the creditor indicated in the judgment. In such cases, when the necessary verification is impossible, the successor of the creditor may file a lawsuit for the grant of execution clause with the court of first instance.

In light of these legal principles in light of the above facts, the plaintiff, who is the successor of D, who is the creditor indicated in the judgment of this case, cannot prove the succession according to the fact that the notification of the assignment of claims to the defendant, who is the debtor, is not delivered. Thus, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit for the delivery of the execution clause with this court

Therefore, regarding the executory exemplification of the Seoul Western District Court 2014Gaso701805 case among the defendant and D Co., Ltd., the Seoul Western District Court, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of F Co., Ltd. for compulsory execution against the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.