A person eligible to raise an objection to the grant of an execution clause to a successor to a debtor (=the successor granted with the execution clause)

An objection against the grant of an execution clause among those as referred to in Article 34(1) of the Civil Execution Act refers to an objection raised by the debtor in the execution clause to seek correction, such as the cancellation of the grant of the execution clause, on the grounds of the illegality in granting the execution clause, in cases where an execution clause has been granted to any person as the execution debtor. Therefore, where the execution clause is granted for the execution against the debtor's successor indicated in the judgment, only the successor may raise an objection, and no objection may be raised against the original debtor indicated in the judgment.

Articles 31 and 34(1) of the Civil Execution Act

Applicant 1 and one other (Law Firm Barun, Attorney Park Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent

The motion of this case is dismissed.

An objection against the grant of an execution clause among those as referred to in Article 34(1) of the Civil Execution Act refers to an objection raised by the debtor in the execution clause to seek correction, such as the cancellation of the grant of the execution clause, on the grounds of the illegality in granting the execution clause, in cases where an execution clause has been granted to any person as the execution debtor. Therefore, where the execution clause is granted for the execution against the debtor's successor indicated in the judgment, only the successor may raise an objection, and no objection may be raised against the original debtor indicated in the judgment.

According to the records, the applicants are merely the original debtor (defendant) indicated in the judgment, and it is evident that the execution clause of succession in this case was granted to the persons other than the applicants' successors. Thus, an objection to the grant of the execution clause in this case is unlawful as it was filed by the non-qualified persons.

Therefore, it shall be decided as per Disposition by rejecting the motion of this case.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)