1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On July 10, 2018, this Court has regard to cases of applying for a suspension of compulsory execution against 2018 Chicago16.

1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the basis of the claim for the settlement of accounts against the Plaintiff acquired from D, and the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment that on May 25, 2016, “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff 32,951,866 won per annum from September 16, 2015 to May 25, 2016, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”

Although the Defendant appealed in the above judgment (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Na5559), the appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on July 6, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2017.

(2) On October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, the transferor of claims, claiming the return of investment proceeds, with the Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da23892, and on October 16, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (D) shall pay to the Plaintiff 12,270,305 won per annum from March 21, 2017 to October 16, 2017, 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The judgment of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that compulsory execution based on the judgment of the previous claim for transfer money is not permissible, since the tax (acquisition tax) omitted as revealed in the lawsuit claiming the return of investment money that the Plaintiff filed against D after the judgment of the previous claim for transfer money is not calculated.

B. Where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit raising an objection is a final and conclusive judgment, an objection in relation to the res judicata can be limited to the circumstances arising after the conclusion of the pleadings at the fact-finding court of the relevant lawsuit. Furthermore, the circumstances that occurred prior to such an objection are not known by the domestic debtor without fault, and thus, before the conclusion of pleadings.