The Seoul Western District Court 2015 Ghana592602 is an executory exemplification of the judgment between the defendant and D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Da592602, and the same court rendered a judgment on December 22, 2015 to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay damages for delay of KRW 14,400,22 on D and KRW 5,157,073 among them,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff, around February 27, 2019, transferred claims based on the instant judgment from D to the Defendant, and sent a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant, but did not reach the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act, an execution clause may be granted for a successor of the creditor indicated in the judgment. In such cases, when the necessary verification is impossible, the successor of the creditor may file a lawsuit for the grant of execution clause with the court of first instance.

The provisions of Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory execution based on the finalized payment order.

(Article 56 subparag. 3 and Article 57 of the Civil Execution Act. In light of such legal principles, the Plaintiff, a creditor indicated in the judgment of this case, is unable to prove the succession according to the fact that the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, a debtor, is not reached, and thus, can file a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the execution clause with this court.

Therefore, regarding the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Seoul Western District Court 2015 Ghana592602 case between the defendant and D, the Seoul Western District Court should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of D for compulsory execution against the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.