1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and Hoho Construction Co., Ltd. on the claim for equipment usage fees, etc. under this Court No. 2015 Ghana452, and the said lawsuit was initiated by service by publication to the Plaintiff.

B. On January 8, 2016, this Court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant that “The Plaintiff and Jeju Construction Co., Ltd. shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant 10,395,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from April 1, 2015 to December 5, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), which became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s new bank, Gwangju Bank, Gwangju Bank, Nonghyup Bank, and the Industrial Bank of Korea’s deposit claims and insurance money claims against the Plaintiff’s new bank, Gwangju Bank, Nonghyup Bank, and the Industrial Bank of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant admitted in the instant judgment did not exist. The Plaintiff did not properly dispute the wind that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit No. 2015Da452 was proceeding by public notice.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should not be permitted.

3. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a lawsuit seeking objection is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if an obligor was unaware of such circumstances and was unable to assert such circumstance before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstances and was unable to assert

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 Decided May 27, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, it is assumed that the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendant, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if it is assumed that the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendant.