Civil Litigation Consultation | Assisting the Client With an Objection-to-Claim Lawsuit to Stay Compulsory Execution

The client, the representative of a small and medium-sized enterprise, was deceived by defendant A's plausible talk and invested a large sum.

The defendant not only misappropriated the client's investment but also attempted to saddle the client with a false debt.

In this process, the defendant had the client prepare a notarized deed containing false content, and on this basis the client's real estate was forcibly attached.

The client asked the Daeryun attorney whether there was any way to stay the compulsory execution.

The attorney explained that the client should file an 🔗objection-to-claim lawsuit and apply for a stay of compulsory execution.

The client entrusted the case to Daeryun Law Firm, where attorneys respond as one team, collaborating on legal reasoning, case-law research, and the construction of arguments to protect the client's interests.

An objection-to-claim lawsuit is a lawsuit in which the debtor asserts that the content and substance of the title of execution do not match, in order to exclude its enforceability.

As with the client in the above case, it is a legal procedure to prevent unjust compulsory execution.

The purpose of an objection-to-claim lawsuit is for the court to judge the legitimacy of the original claim and correct an erroneous decision. This lawsuit is mainly filed when compulsory execution is found to be unjust.

For example, this may apply where the claim has not arisen, where the claim set out in the title of execution has been extinguished, or where the right is being abused.

Typical grounds on which an objection-to-claim lawsuit may be filed

The defendant asked the client to prepare a notarized deed regarding an agreement to pay 400 million won, a portion of the equity, if the investment business succeeded.

The client was entirely unaware that this investment was a fraudulent act.

The defendant then suddenly changed his position and demanded that the client prepare a document stating that the defendant had loaned 400 million won to the client.

The client was worried about preparing a loan certificate for a loan that had never been borrowed, but, thinking that failing to prepare it might mean being unable to recover even the investment itself, the client came to prepare a notarized deed with that content.

The civil litigation attorney asserted that compulsory execution could not be carried out.

This is because this notarized deed was prepared based on false content, with no actual loan in existence.

The civil litigation attorney emphasized that this notarized deed was based on false content and that compulsory execution founded on it could not be permitted, and requested a judgment disallowing the compulsory execution.