1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gaso581080 Decided August 28, 2013.

Basic Facts

The defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the acquisition amount against the plaintiff and received the judgment in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition ordering the payment of the acquisition amount and the delayed damages, which became final and conclusive on September 26, 2013.

(B) The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Jeonju District Court 2012Hadan1525, and was declared bankrupt on November 14, 2014, and completed bankruptcy on July 24, 2014. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive after receiving a decision to grant immunity on July 30, 2012.

On November 30, 2016, the defendant issued the Jeju District Court's order of seizure and collection of claims on November 30, 2016, and accordingly collected KRW 1,807,069 on December 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant asserts to the effect that the part of the claim objection in the lawsuit of this case concerning Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings is unlawful because of the lack of dispute. The defendant's assertion to the effect that since the defendant collected KRW 1,807,069 from compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case and collected KRW 1,807,069 as a result of compulsory execution, the part of the claim objection in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

On the other hand, there is no benefit to seek non-permission of the compulsory execution by an action of objection after the compulsory execution based on the executive title has been completed as a whole, and the creditor has satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 Decided April 25, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043 Decided May 29, 2014, etc.). However, this legal doctrine applies to a case where a specific executive title’s executive title’s claim is fully satisfied through compulsory execution, etc. However, it is difficult to apply to a case where only a certain executive title’s claim is partially satisfied and the remainder remains.