beta
Text
1. Loan cases between E and the Defendant became final and conclusive by the Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea24891.
Reasons
1. The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the facts of the cause of the instant claim are as stated in the annexed cause of claim, and it may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Nos. 1 and 6.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Da24891 decided on the payment order of loans between E and the Defendant should grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff for compulsory execution against the Defendant X-gu.
The Defendants asserted that, upon partial repayment to E Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd. agreed to have no debt.
A lawsuit for grant of execution clause under Article 33 of the Civil Execution Act is a lawsuit to obtain the execution clause by judgment by asserting and proving that the creditor is unable to prove the matters to be proved by a certificate in order to obtain the execution clause if the creditor is unable to obtain such certification, without being subject to the restriction on the method of proof, and there is an executory power based on such reason. A lawsuit for raising an objection to a claim under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act is a lawsuit to exclude the executory power of the executory power on the ground of an objection raised against the claim indicated by the debtor in the execution title
As above, in light of the purport of the Civil Execution Act, in a lawsuit for grant of execution clause and a lawsuit for objection, the subject of examination in the lawsuit for grant of execution clause ought to be deemed to have been subject to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions and the
Therefore, it is not permissible for a debtor to raise an objection in a lawsuit for objection against a claim under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act in a lawsuit for granting an execution clause.
(Supreme Court Decision 201Da93087 Decided April 13, 2012). The repayment, as asserted by the Defendants, is in line with the legal doctrine as seen earlier.