D With respect to the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2013da1087166, the decision on the acquisition amount between the corporation and the defendant.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the facts of the reasons for the claim are recognized.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is a successor to the claim based on the judgment in the instant case No. 2013 Ghana1087166. Thus, the lower court’s junior administrative officer, etc. should grant to the Plaintiff, who is a successor to the D Co., Ltd., an execution clause for succession to the Plaintiff in order to have the Plaintiff enforce compulsory execution against

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant's obligation had already been extinguished due to repayment or renunciation of the obligation. However, in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause, it is limited only to the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of succession, and it is not permissible to simply assert the grounds for objection regarding the claim in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a lawsuit for objection to the claim. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without having to further examine.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.