Whether a third party who has succeeded to the third party after the closing of argument before the closing of argument can be seen as a successor after the closing of argument under Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

If the first succession of the Defendant’s possession of the building title claim had already existed before the closing of argument in the same case, even if the second succession had existed after the closing of argument, the second successor cannot be considered as a successor after the closing of argument in Articles 204 and 481 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the second successor cannot be considered as a successor after the closing of argument in the same case.

Articles 204 and 481 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and two others

On May 21, 1985, the execution clause that the defendants and the non-party 1 granted to the defendants as the successors of the above non-party 1 shall be revoked on the original copy of the judgment in Busan District Court 82Gahap3767 case.

Any compulsory execution based on the above executory judgment against the plaintiffs by the defendants shall be rejected.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

No. 1 (Judgment) and No. 4-1 to 5 (each lease contract) and No. 5-1 to 5 (each sub-lease contract) which are acknowledged by Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 2 by Non-Party 1's testimony, and all of the above testimony of Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 2 were brought by the Defendants against Non-Party 1, Busan District Court No. 82-3767, Nov. 3, 1982, and the above non-party 1 was closed on November 24, 1982, and the above non-party 2, the non-party 9-1 to the above non-party 2, the non-party 9-1 to the above non-party 2, the non-party 9-1 to the above non-party 2, the non-party 9-1 to the above non-party 2, the non-party 9-1 to the above non-party 2, the non-party 1 to the above non-party 9-party 18.

Thus, as long as Nonparty 4, 5, 6, and 7 succeeded the first time before the closing of argument in the above building name map claim, even though the second succession of the plaintiffs was after the closing of argument, the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as a successor after the closing of argument in Articles 204 and 481 of the Civil Procedure Act, so the succeeding execution clause cannot be granted to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, on May 21, 1985, the execution clause granted to the Defendants by Nonparty 2 with the Plaintiffs as the successors of the above Nonparty 1 should be revoked in the original copy of the judgment on the case of the claim for the surrender of building name between the Defendants and the above Nonparty 1 and the above Nonparty 1. Therefore, the claim of this case seeking the revocation thereof and the refusal of compulsory execution based on the above succession execution clause is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants, the losing party.

Judges Yoon Jong-su (Presiding Judge)