1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s Changwon District Court Decision 2017Gaz. 102304 rendered against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the scrap metal wholesale business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who runs the construction machinery rental business.

B. The Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the Defendant for the payment of the construction cost upon the lease of construction machinery. As to the foregoing case, the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation for the construction cost payment under the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Gau102304, Changhae District Court Decision 2017Ga

Accordingly, the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive as it is because the plaintiff did not raise an objection within the legitimate objection period.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (c)

Based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case, the Defendant applied for the attachment and collection order of the claim under Busan District Court 2017TTTT 54723 and received the decision of acceptance on June 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant collection order”). Based on the above collection order, the Defendant collected all the claims under the decision on performance recommendation of this case and completed its execution procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 3, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleading

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the instant lawsuit, which seeks non-permission of compulsory execution, ex officio, of the part on which the Plaintiff seeks non-permission of compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case.

There is no benefit to seek non-permission of the compulsory execution by a lawsuit of demurrer any longer after the creditor obtains satisfaction after the compulsory execution based on the executive title has been completed as a whole.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). With respect to the instant case, the fact that the Defendant received a decision to seize and collect the claims in accordance with the instant performance recommendation decision and accordingly, collected all the claims under the said performance recommendation decision. As seen earlier, as long as the execution was completely completed based on the instant performance recommendation decision, the Defendant sought the refusal of execution.