beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. Since the Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered by the Changwon District Court Decision 2015Gais20750 (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”) with false bonds, compulsory execution based on such judgment shall be dismissed.
B. Since the Defendant’s tort committed by the Defendant’s lawsuit fraud caused damages (property damages of KRW 3,976,370, and mental damages of KRW 5,00,00) to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages.
2. Determination
A. In order to file a lawsuit for objection in cases where executive titles with respect to the part on which compulsory execution is denied are final and conclusive, the grounds for objection should have arisen after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment. The grounds for “non-existence of a claim” asserted by the Plaintiff are the grounds that have already occurred prior to the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, the objection cannot be a legitimate ground
Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is decided to the effect that the enforcement of the judgment, which obtained as a litigation fraud, is not allowed as an abuse of rights, in full view of all the circumstances such as the nature of the right that became an executive title and its contents, circumstances leading up to the establishment of the judgment and the execution of the judgment after the establishment of the judgment, and the impact of the enforcement of the judgment on the parties, etc., in order to ensure that the contents of the judgment are contrary to the substantive legal relationship and the enforcement of the judgment constitutes an abuse of rights, it should be deemed that the enforcement based on the judgment is considerably unfair and that the execution based on the judgment is clearly against the justice and that it is difficult to view that the enforcement of the judgment or the exercise of rights based on the claim constitutes an abuse of rights as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014).