The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not assert the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff did not claim the invalidity of the merger, as long as the registration was not completed due to the final judgment of nullification of the merger and the Defendant did not assert the Defendant’s bad faith or gross negligence, as long as the Plaintiff did not assert the Defendant’s bad faith or gross negligence, even at the time of granting the execution clause, the judgment of invalidity of the merger becomes final and conclusive before the succession execution clause is granted. However, the judgment of invalidity of the merger becomes final and conclusive under the Commercial Act provides that a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “BSP”) prepared a quasi-loan loan deed stating that the Defendant would pay KRW 520,000,000 to the Defendant, including the purport of recognizing compulsory execution.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

When a debtor's succession indicated in a judgment is clearly true in the court or proves such succession by a certificate, an execution clause may be granted in accordance with the order of the presiding judge for the execution against the debtor's successor (Articles 31 and 32 of the Civil Execution Act). The requirements for granting such succession execution clause are whether the party indicated in the execution title has a substantive legal succession.

Where the debtor contests by denying the succession to the status of the debtor, the grant of the succession execution clause.