1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. As the Plaintiff’s claim C Association and D’s additional relocation allowance claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) retroactively extinguished according to a set-off conducted in the previous lawsuit between the Plaintiff’s claim, the attachment and collection order of the claim already extinguished by the Defendant is null and void, and the judgment rendered based on this order should be excluded from the enforcement force of the judgment. Meanwhile, the set-off in the previous lawsuit occurred only after the Supreme Court’s judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015, and thus, a legitimate ground for objection is a legitimate ground for objection.

B. In a case where an executive title, which is subject to an objection in a lawsuit seeking objection, is a final and conclusive judgment, the grounds should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if the debtor was unaware of such circumstances without fault and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the grounds for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005). In the case of a judgment without pleading, the grounds for objection ought to arise after the judgment was pronounced.

Furthermore, even if a claim for offset in court is made in the course of a lawsuit, it is effective by the declaration of intention of offset, and it does not take effect only by the final judgment of the court.

On the other hand, since the reason for the plaintiff's assertion of objection has ceased to exist due to set-off, seizure and collection order against the above claim is null and void, and D's claim is included before September 30, 2014, which is the date of the decision of the Supreme Court.