The case is transferred to Daejeon District Court.

Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “A debtor who intends to raise an objection against a claim finalized by a judgment shall file a lawsuit of demurrer to the court of judgment in the first instance,” and the main text of Article 45 provides that the said provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit of objection against grant of execution clause.

Here, the "court of the first instance court" refers to a court which has rendered a judgment on a claim indicated in the judgment, namely, a claim to be realized by compulsory execution based on the judgment, which is an executive title, which is subject to exclusive jurisdiction by nature as a direct jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, Article 56 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “a judgment against appeal only shall be rendered as one of the executive titles,” and Article 57 provides that Articles 44 and 45 shall apply mutatis mutandis to compulsory execution based on such executive titles.

Therefore, a lawsuit of demurrer against a decision of indirect compulsory performance rendered by the collegiate panel of a district court or a lawsuit of objection against the grant of execution clause is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court which rendered the decision.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da80627 Decided April 7, 2017). In light of the above legal principles, the part of the claim in this case seeking to exclude enforcement of the provisional disposition order 2010Kahap590 by the Daejeon District Court is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panel Division of the Daejeon District Court.

However, in the case of such exclusive jurisdiction, the application of the provisions on related judgments under the Civil Procedure Act is excluded (Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act), and in the case of selective consolidation, the claim is indivisiblely combined with a single lawsuit due to its nature, so if one of them belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, the remaining claims shall also be transferred together (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da99, Jul. 24, 1998; 2015Na203193, Dec. 11, 2015). Ultimately, this case is the Daejeon District Court, the competent court.