2016Na52525 Objection

A

B

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da36662 Decided April 8, 2016

June 24, 2016

July 8, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On August 16, 2013, the case of the application for confirmation of intention of divorce between the defendant and the defendant's District Court 2013No. 1928, the compulsory execution based on the child support charge protocol against the plaintiff is denied.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning on this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial, and therefore, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed, since the defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's deposit claim under this court's 2015TT No. 14687, and the plaintiff applied for a decision of suspension of compulsory execution based on the defendant's above child support charge record even though the plaintiff applied for a decision of suspension of compulsory execution based on the defendant's above child support charge record.

However, the issue of issuing a seizure and collection order of a claim is determined after examining the formal matters, such as whether the application is proper, whether the executory exemplification exists, and whether the application satisfies the requirements for commencement of execution, and it is not determined after examining the substantive existence of the executory bond. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the substantive existence of the executory bond is confirmed on the ground that the issuance of a seizure and collection order of a claim has been issued. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the acceptance of the application for the suspension of execution has an impact on the substantive existence

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, assistant judge

Judges Hong-ju

Judges Lee Jae-in