1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On May 1, 2017, this Court has regard to cases where a request for suspension of compulsory execution is filed by this Court.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On June 26, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the takeover amount of the money (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da35082), and was sentenced to a judgment on June 26, 2012, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,50,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of 60% per annum from October 10 to June 29, 2007 and 30% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

(The date of closing argument in the above case is June 26, 2012). B.

Although the Plaintiff appealed to the instant judgment, on December 21, 2017, the Busan District Court Decision 2017Na3526 decided on December 21, 2017 that “The appeal filed after the lapse of the appeal period, which failed to meet the requirements for the subsequent completion” was dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The claim alleged by the Defendant that it was acquired by transfer does not exist from the beginning, and even if so exist, it was extinguished by the performance on March 26, 2003, and the extinctive prescription has already expired upon completion of the extinctive prescription.

B. Compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted as abuse of rights.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff 2. A.

In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit claiming an objection is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if the circumstances arising prior to such a final and conclusive judgment were not known by the debtor without fault, the circumstance that the debtor was unable to assert such circumstance before the closure of pleadings cannot be deemed as the ground for objection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 delivered on May 27, 2005). The Plaintiff’s above 2. A.

The claim is related to the situation that occurred before the closing of argument in the judgment of this case. Thus, the claim objection cannot be a ground for objection.

The above assertion of extinctive prescription is based on the judgment of this case.