1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On October 16, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C for a loan claim under the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013Gau15007, and the said court concluded the pleadings of the instant case on October 16, 2013. On the same day, the Defendant sentenced that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant an amount of KRW 13,019,178 and KRW 5 million with interest of KRW 20% per annum from June 17, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the facts for which the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 28, 2013 do not conflict between the parties or if the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 3 is added.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although D, the principal debtor of the above loan alleged by the Plaintiff, made several payments from June 15, 2005 to April 30, 2009, the total amount of the loan became extinct, the Plaintiff was subjected to the above judgment by deceiving the above court with hiding it. Thus, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant 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 court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

According to Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff is the Seoul Central District Court.