1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Gaso27639 (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said court served the Plaintiff with a notice of a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading by means of public notice that the duplicate of the complaint is not served on the Plaintiff, and the pleading was conducted on November 3, 2016, and concluded the pleading on November 3, 2016, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (the instant Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the instant Plaintiff) 5 million won and interest thereon 30% per annum from October 6, 2016 to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said court served the Plaintiff by means of public notice, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2016 is not a dispute between the parties, or is obviously a dispute between the parties.

2. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff first repaid to the Defendant KRW 50 million on February 27, 2014; (b) KRW 560,000 on June 23, 2014; and (c) KRW 1 million on December 31, 2014, among the loans under the instant judgment; and (d) subsequently, upon the Defendant’s request, arranged the sale of real estate in Suwon-si C on March 24, 2015, sold the said real estate to Nonparty D on March 24, 2015; and accordingly, (c) accordingly, the Defendant was entitled to receive KRW 10 million on March 24, 2015; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the obligation to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff was extinguished on March 24, 2015 and thus rejected compulsory execution based on the instant judgment.

B. Determination 1) First of all, in a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a claim objection suit is a final and conclusive judgment, the grounds should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if an obligor was unaware of such circumstances without fault and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be considered as the grounds for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005).