beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on May 29, 2015, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 36% per annum from December 24, 2012 to the date of full payment” (No. 2014 Ghana897329; hereinafter “instant previous judgment”) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 10, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan, which is the cause of the claim for the previous judgment of this case, was lent by the Defendant, who was a bondholder, for gambling at the Defendant’s house, and then was lent for gambling. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim the return of the loan as an illegal cause. However, the Plaintiff did not properly dispute the case in this Court No. 2014Gaso897329, and the Plaintiff paid 8.55 million won out of the above loan to the Defendant in 2012 and 2013. As such, the previous judgment of this case has lost the effect of enforcement title, and compulsory execution based thereon should be denied.
B. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit claiming a judgment is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should have arisen after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit. Moreover, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstance, and
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not know of the facts charged to the Plaintiff at the time of the closing of argument in the previous judgment, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not know of the facts charged to the Plaintiff at the time of the closing of argument in the previous judgment cannot be deemed as the grounds for objection.
The plaintiff's claim.