1. As to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gaso3964 decided on the acquisition amount between F Co., Ltd and the Defendants.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the cause of the claim as shown in the separate sheet is the same as that of the attached sheet. As such, the Seoul Central District Court shall grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of the F Co., Ltd. for compulsory execution against the defendants by the F Co. and the defendants.

2. Defendant D’s assertion argues that Defendant D did not lend the original claim that the Plaintiff acquired, and even if the loan was made, the extinctive prescription of the loan was completed, the claim cannot be complied with.

In the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause, the subject of the examination is limited only to the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of succession to the status, and it is not permissible for the execution obligor to simply assert the grounds for objection in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a lawsuit for objection. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the allegation by Defendant D itself.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.