1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

C filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul District Court Branch 2003Gahap4116 against the plaintiff.

On November 27, 2003, the above court rendered a ruling that "the plaintiff shall pay C the amount of KRW 182,00,000,000 per annum from July 31, 2003 to the date of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment amount of this case") with 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2003," and the judgment was finalized on January 3, 2004.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). On January 2016, C received KRW 140 million from the Defendant while serving as a policeman, and on January 29, 2016, C drafted a claim transfer and takeover contract with the Defendant that transfers the instant judgment amount to the Defendant.

On April 14, 2016, upon delegation by C, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims.

On August 19, 2016, the defendant was granted an execution clause to succeed to the claim of this case and was decided by the Incheon District Court to seize and collect the plaintiff's claim from the Incheon District Court.

【In the absence of dispute, the Defendant agreed to take over the obligation of the instant judgment amount in return for the transfer of the Plaintiff’s claim against D from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to take over the obligation of the instant judgment amount in return for the transfer of the claim against the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

Since the Defendant paid KRW 140 million to C, the obligation of the instant judgment that the Defendant acquired by himself has ceased to have been repaid, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall not be permitted.

Even if the obligation of this case was not extinguished, the obligation of this case was not extinguished.

Even if the defendant has a right to KRW 140 million paid to C, the part exceeding the above KRW 140 million should not be subject to compulsory execution.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the Defendant assumed the obligation of this case only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 through 9, and the Defendant.