1. As to the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2013 Ghana5482985 between C and the Defendant, the decision is made.

1. Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 5, it is recognized that the cause of the claim as shown in the separate sheet is established. As such, the Seoul Central District Court's Decision 2013Gaso5482985 between C and the defendant should be granted the execution clause to the plaintiff, the successor of C Co., Ltd. for compulsory execution against the defendant.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's person in charge of the plaintiff's personal information is unable to respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff stated his/her intent not to repay his/her obligation to the defendant, as he/she raised an objection to the fact that the defendant illegally inquired

In the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause, the subject of examination is limited only to the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of the fact of succession, and it is not permissible for the execution obligor to simply assert the grounds for objection regarding the claim in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a lawsuit for objection to the claim. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.