1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the purchase of goods with Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap18940, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7,814,043 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 16, 201 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the instant judgment became final and conclusive on November 2013.

B. The Defendant filed an application for execution of the seizure of corporeal movables against the Plaintiff’s movable property as the Incheon District Court 2016No. 2055 with the title of execution of the instant judgment as an executive title.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, before the Plaintiff’s claim for alcoholic beverage payment against the Plaintiff was transferred to the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid all the alcoholic beverage payments to the Plaintiff, the transferor, and the Plaintiff was supplied with alcoholic beverage from the Defendant during the period from March to July 2011. Therefore, the instant judgment is different from the facts, and thus, the compulsory execution based on the instant judgment ought to be denied.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, such a final and conclusive judgment cannot be contested unless the final and conclusive judgment is revoked by a lawsuit for retrial, and in order for an obligor to raise an objection against a claim finalized by a judgment pursuant to Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act, the grounds for objection shall have arisen after the conclusion of pleadings. The grounds for objection raised by the Plaintiff cannot be the grounds for objection, since the grounds for objection raised by the Plaintiff arose after the closure

[Plaintiff may bring an objection to the instant judgment only on or after September 20, 2012 (e.g., grounds such as repayment after the date of the closing of argument) which is the date of the closing of argument in the instant judgment. 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless and thus dismissed. Accordingly, the first instance judgment is unfair as it is so unfair.