beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s District Court Decision 2015Ra125791 (No. 125791) against the Plaintiff is based on the judgment on the loan case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) for loans of KRW 150,000,000 as the District Court Decision 2015Da125791, as the loans of KRW 150,000,00, and damages for delay.
(hereinafter referred to as "subject case"). B
On June 22, 2016, the above court rendered a ruling that “the Plaintiff, etc. shall jointly and severally pay 150,000,000 won to the Defendant with 5% interest per annum from December 17, 2009 to May 11, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the original judgment was served on the Plaintiff, etc., but the judgment became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff, etc. did not appeal.
【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap 1, 2, 8, 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Defendant submitted a complaint in the subject case as if he had a monetary claim without any awareness with the Plaintiff, and as if he had a monetary claim, he did not have any monetary claim, and submitted as evidence a sales contract a forged land share in the name of the Plaintiff, which was the normal purchase from the Plaintiff’s land share (1/2 out of 940 square meters of forest land F.M. F. 3). The instant judgment was rendered in favor of the Defendant in favor of the other Defendant who was unable to properly respond to the Plaintiff due to the lack of legal knowledge at the time. Under this circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment is remarkably unfair, and it cannot be readily accepted as against justice to allow the Plaintiff to authorize its execution (hereinafter “the allegation of abuse of rights”).
(2) Even if not, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 54,046,644 in the compulsory execution against D’s real estate owned by and among the obligors jointly and severally liable for the instant judgment, and thus, ought to be deducted.
(hereinafter referred to as “performance assertion”). (b)
Judgment
1. The judgment on abuse of rights becomes final and conclusive.