1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 27, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of goods with the Jincheon-gun District Court Decision 2017Gau114, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment (hereinafter “final judgment on the previous suit of this case”) against the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 27,680,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 18, 2017 to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant vinyl was built by the Defendant at the request of the Plaintiff’s father, and the Plaintiff did not have any legal relationship with the Defendant, and there is no obligation against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, since the final judgment of the previous suit of this case, which was concluded in favor of the defendant as the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to defend with the wind to proceed by service by public notice, is erroneous, compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be denied.

B. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit claiming a judgment is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should have arisen after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit. Moreover, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance, and

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s determination that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the absence of an obligation constitutes a ground for objection on the ground that it is obvious that the absence of an obligation had existed prior to the date of closing argument in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit of this case. Thus, the ground for objection cannot be deemed as the ground for objection.

(1) The court below concluded that the plaintiff filed a legitimate appeal against the judgment of the previous suit of this case and the res judicata should be extinguished.