1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Gwangju District Court 2015Kadan5035.

1. The compulsory execution based on the conciliation provision of this case does not constitute an abuse of rights.

2. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted by the parties, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance uses "(3)" in the sixth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and according to the above fact-finding," as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since compulsory execution pursuant to the conciliation provision of this case constitutes abuse of rights.

A) Once a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the existence of a claim subject to res judicata becomes final and conclusive, and the content thereof shall take effect accordingly. Even in cases where a right based on a final and conclusive judgment ought to be exercised faithfully and faithfully, and where enforcement based on a judgment becomes an abuse of rights, an executory obligor may seek the exclusion of enforcement by filing a lawsuit seeking objection. However, in light of the purport that res judicata is recognized in a final and conclusive judgment for legal stability and the fact that a lawsuit seeking revocation is a matter of principle to exclude the effect of a final and conclusive judgment, compulsory execution pursuant to a final and conclusive judgment should not be easily recognized as abuse of rights. For such recognition, there should be special circumstances such as where the content of a final and conclusive judgment is contrary to the justice and where it is clearly unreasonable to execute the final and conclusive judgment and allowing the other party to execute it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da75717, Feb. 21, 2014).