1. As to the loan cases between D Co. and the Defendant, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 Ghana1683655 decided.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, D Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the defendant for a loan claim against the Seoul Central District Court 2010Daso1683655, and received a favorable judgment on March 24, 2011, and confirmed around that time, D Co., Ltd transferred a claim based on the above judgment to the plaintiff (the plaintiff is E Co., Ltd. at the time) on February 20, 2014. D Co. and the plaintiff sent a notice of assignment of claim to the defendant on May 19, 2020, and the complaint of this case attached with the said notice of assignment of claim was delivered to the defendant on July 31, 2020.

Therefore, for compulsory execution against the defendant, the junior administrative officer, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff, who is the successor to the claim based on the above judgment.

2. The Defendant asserts that the amount of the claim based on the above judgment is very inappropriate.

However, the subject of a lawsuit for grant of execution clause is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions or the fact of succession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). The Defendant’s above assertion is not related to the requirements for grant of execution clause, and therefore, it is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.