1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court) handed down on November 12, 2015.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the part “1. Basic Facts” between the second and fifth pages of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why the plaintiff's assertion in this part is presented are as follows: "In addition, the final and conclusive judgment of this case is invalid due to the lack of legal requirements because the defendant, who did not meet the requirements for succession, participates in succession, and thus, a compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case shall not be permitted." This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part of "the summary of the plaintiff's assertion 2.2." Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Determination

A. In a case where the executive titles subject to an objection in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for judgment, such as the concurrence of seizure, are final and conclusive, such grounds should have arisen after the closure of pleadings at the trial court of the relevant lawsuit. Moreover, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstances without fault and was unable to assert such facts before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the grounds for objection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 Decided May 27, 2005). In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s competition and the requirements for participation in the attachment alleged by the Plaintiff were met on or before October 15, 2015, which is the date of closing argument in the final and conclusive judgment of this case; and (b) it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s legitimate grounds for objection. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where the contents of a final and conclusive judgment on the assertion of abuse of rights, etc. are contrary to the substantive legal relationship, the execution based on the final and conclusive judgment is considerably unfair in full view of all the circumstances, including the nature and contents of the right which can be executed by the judgment, the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the judgment and the execution thereof, and the impact on the parties