1. The Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff is based on the Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gaso203672 Decided September 8, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages with the Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gais203672, and the said court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 2,525,590 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 25, 2016 to September 8, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 2016.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 850,000 to the Defendant, KRW 850,000, KRW 850,000 on January 23, 2017, KRW 850,000 on February 1, 2017, and KRW 18,553 on February 18, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense was dismissed by the Defendant’s application for seizure of corporeal movables based on the final judgment of the instant case, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no legal interest in the lawsuit.

However, a lawsuit of demurrer under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act is a lawsuit that excludes the executive force of the executive titles on the ground of an objection raised in respect of the claim indicated in the executive titles, and it does not necessarily require an act of individual execution. The Defendant’s withdrawal of an application for compulsory execution based on executive titles does not necessarily mean that the executive force of the executive titles was excluded. The Defendant may resume compulsory execution once the executive force of the judgment of this case continues to exist effectively. As such, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek against the Defendant as a lawsuit to exclude the executive force of the final judgment of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

B. The amount transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant according to the statutory appropriation as prescribed in Article 479 of the Civil Act shall be the Defendant according to the final judgment of this case in the order of interest and principal.