1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted a letter of payment that “the Plaintiff and D will jointly pay KRW 3,000,000 to December 31, 2007” (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

B. Defendant B applied for the payment order against the Plaintiff and D as Busan District Court Branch Branch of Dong Branch of Busan District Court on March 20, 2009, and on March 20, 2009, Defendant B paid the payment order of this case to Defendant B, jointly and severally with D to Defendant B with “3,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from March 26, 2009 to the date of full payment.”

(C) Upon receipt of the instant payment order, around August 9, 2009, the instant payment order became final and conclusive on April 9, 2009. Defendant B transferred his claim based on the instant payment order to Defendant C, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the said claim at that time. D. Defendant C, as a successor to Defendant B, was granted a succeeding execution clause regarding the instant payment order on September 22, 2017. [In the absence of any dispute over grounds for recognition, Party A’s 2 and 3 evidence, and Party B’s each entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Where the claim on the executive title regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant B is transferred and the requirements for setting up against the assignee are met, the standing to be a party to the execution shall be changed to the assignee, and the execution obligee becomes final and conclusive as the assignee according to the fact that the succeeded execution clause is to be granted. As such, the executory power of the existing executive title against the

Therefore, a subsequent suit of objection filed against a transferor is unlawful because it is filed against a non-qualified person, or seeks to exclude executive force of executive titles already extinguished, and there is no benefit of protection of rights.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23889, Feb. 1, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, Defendant B, ex officio, claims against Defendant C based on the instant payment order.