beta
Text
The Suwon District Court Decision 2010 Ghana82435 rendered by the defendant and C is an executory judgment of the case.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of indemnity amount under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2010 Ghana82435, and the said court rendered a judgment on February 16, 2011 that “the Defendant shall pay C Co., Ltd. KRW 1,171,710 and delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiff received a claim based on the instant judgment from C Co., Ltd. and sent a notice of assignment 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, the execution clause may be granted for the successor of the creditor indicated in the judgment. In this case, when the necessary verification is impossible, the successor of the creditor may file a lawsuit requesting the grant of the execution clause with the court of first instance.
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, who is the successor of C Co., Ltd., which is the creditor indicated in the judgment of this case, cannot certify the succession according to the fact that the notification of assignment of claims to the defendant, who is the debtor, has not arrived at the notification of assignment of claims. Thus, the plaintiff can file
(A) The Plaintiff, as a mandatory agent of C Co., Ltd., notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim through the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint. Therefore, regarding the judgment with executory power over the claim reimbursement case No. 2010 Ghana 82435 between the Defendant and C Co., Ltd., a junior administrative officer, etc. of Suwon District Court ought to grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff, a successor of C Co., Ltd.,
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.