beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the party members of the court of first instance should explain this case are referred to as "Seoul District Court 96Da23385" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Seoul Central District Court 96Kadan23835," and except for adding the following judgments to the new arguments of the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case constitutes abuse of rights since the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for debt settlement.
B. (1) A decision shall be made in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, and when the execution based on the decision becomes an abuse of rights, the enforcement defendant shall be entitled to seek the exclusion of the execution by a claim objection suit. In light of all the circumstances such as the nature and contents of the right which can be executed by the decision, the circumstances leading up to the formation of the decision and the execution after the decision is made, and the impact of the execution on the parties, in a case where the execution based on the final decision is clearly unfair and unfair, and it is recognized that the execution of the decision is not permissible in social life because it is against the definition of abuse of rights.
(see Supreme Court Decision 9Da32899, Nov. 13, 2001). In such a case, there is room for a possibility that the contents of a final and conclusive judgment may be contrary to the substantive legal relationship, and alone, it is difficult to deem that compulsory execution or exercise of rights based on the relevant claim constitutes abuse of rights as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da17436, Jul. 6, 2006; 2013Da75717, Feb. 21, 2014).