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. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016 Ghana4844.

On August 19, 2016, the above court served a notice of complaint and the date of pleading on the method of service by public notice, and concluded the pleading on August 19, 2016. On the same day, the court rendered a judgment that “the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) 10 million won with interest of 30% per annum from September 16, 2005 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the above judgment was finalized on September 14, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant’s filing of the instant lawsuit constitutes fraud,” and filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant, but the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision on June 7, 2019 not to prosecute the Defendant (Evidence of Evidence).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s principal debtor, the Plaintiff’s principal debtor, repaid all loans to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant against the Defendant constituted abuse of rights even after the statute of limitations has expired.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case is not permissible.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a claim objection suit is final and conclusive, the reason should arise after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit, and even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it prior

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005). In light of the above legal doctrine, the primary debtor performed all obligations, which serve as the basis for the judgment of this case, to the Defendant.

or the instant case.