Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Fulfilment of an issuance condition cannot be heard in an exclusion action
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2023Da271033 (judgment)
Case name: 청구이의[조정조서의 조정조항에서 정한 집행 조건의 성취 여부가 청구이의 사유에 해당하는지 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the fulfilment of a condition for the issuance of an execution document be raised and examined as a ground for excluding the force of execution of the execution instrument in an action for exclusion of a claim?
Holding
No. The Court held that the fulfilment of a condition for issuing an execution document belongs in the action for issuance of the execution document or the action objecting to its issuance, not in an action to exclude the force of execution of the instrument, which hears objections arising from the claim stated in it. Here the mediation clause barred the plaintiff from transferring the superficies right intended to be established for a PF loan or providing it for the purpose of a mortgage, and whether the plaintiff breached that bar was such a condition. The court below misapprehended the law when it examined the breach, found none and refused enforcement of that clause of the mediation record.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
집행문부여의 요건인 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지, 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The fulfillment of a condition that is a requirement for the granting of an execution clause is a matter that should be asserted and examined in an action for the granting of an execution clause or an action for objection to the granting of an execution clause relating to the granting of the execution clause, and is not a matter to be examined in an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the enforceable title by raising objections arising with respect to the claim indicated in the enforceable title.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소 등에서 심리되어야 할 사항일 뿐 조정조서의 집행력 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리될 사항이라고 볼 수 없는데도
Unofficial English translation
even though the fulfillment of that condition is a matter that should be examined in an action for objection to the granting of an execution clause and the like, and cannot be regarded as a matter to be examined in an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the mediation record
Factors
- 집행문부여의 요건인 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지
- 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다
- 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였다는 점은 조정조서의 집행을 위한 조건에 해당하므로
Unofficial English translation
• The fulfillment of a condition that is a requirement for the granting of an execution clause is a matter that should be asserted and examined in an action for the granting of an execution clause or an action for objection to the granting of an execution clause relating to the granting of the execution clause, and
• is not a matter to be examined in an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the enforceable title by raising objections arising with respect to the claim indicated in the enforceable title
• The fact that A Corporation violated the obligation of prohibition prescribed in the mediation clause constitutes a condition for the execution of the mediation record,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011다92916 판결(공2012상, 783)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da92916 decided April 13, 2012 (Gong 2012 Sang, 783)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011다92916 판결(공2012상, 783)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
After a ruling on an objection to the issuance of an execution document has become final, may that execution document's lawfulness be litigated again in an action for exclusion of a claim?
The retrial judgment of the Seoul Central District Court in case 2022Na79291 will show how the grounds the court below left unexamined are treated on remand. A later decision on the effect of a final ruling on an objection to issuance, or an amendment to Article 30, Article 44 or Article 45 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 28 or Article 29 of the Civil Conciliation Act, or Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “After a ruling on an objection to the issuance of an execution document has become final, may that execution document's lawfulness be litigated again in an action for exclusion of a claim?” vs Independent “Did the company's conduct actually breach the prohibition in the mediation terms and thereby fulfill the condition for granting an execution clause?”
The primary reading asks about renewed litigation after a final rejection of an objection, while the independent reading asks whether the company actually breached the prohibition.
집행문부여의 요건인 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지, 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 20 July 2023 (2022Na79291), accepted the plaintiff's claim. Although the meaning of the mediation clause was not entirely clear, it held that the plaintiff's PF loan for the solar power plant business and the mortgage registered over the superficies right as security were not the prohibited case of 'providing the superficies right intended to be established for a PF loan for the purpose of a mortgage', and refused enforcement of that clause.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that whether the plaintiff breached the mediation clause was a matter for the action objecting to issuance, not this action, so the court below misapprehended the law on the grounds for exclusion and that error affected its judgment. It also noted that part of the plaintiff's cause of action might count as a ground for exclusion, which the court below had not examined, and remanded the case for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- An objection arising from the claim stated in the execution instrument itself, since that is the kind of objection an action for exclusion of a claim hears.
- A ground within the plaintiff's cause of action capable of being seen as a ground for exclusion, since the Supreme Court left that part undecided by the court below.
Record verification notes
Read the mediation clause first to identify the condition it sets for execution, here the bar on transferring the superficies right intended for a PF loan or providing it for a mortgage. Then separate grounds that may count as grounds for exclusion from those going only to the condition. Note also that the ruling dismissing the plaintiff's objection to issuance in Seoul Central District Court case 2020Kagi493 had become final before this action was brought.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 집행권원의 집행력 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 집행문부여의 요건인 조건의 성취 여부를 청구이의의 사유로 내세울 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 등 사이에 을 등 소유 토지에 관한 임대차계약이 체결되고 특약사항에서 정한 바에 따라 그들 사이에 조정이 성립되어 조정조서가 작성되었는데, 을 등이 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였다는 이유로 집행분 부여신청을 하여 집행문을 부여받자, 갑 회사가 자신의 행위는 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무 위반에 해당하지 않는다는 등의 주장을 하면서 청구이의의 소를 제기한 사안에서, 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였는지는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소 등에서 심리되어야 할 사항일 뿐 조정조서의 집행력 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리될 사항이라고 볼 수 없는데도, 이를 심리한 후 위반이 아니라고 보아 위 조정조항 부분에 관하여 강제집행을 불허한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of an enforceable title, the fulfillment of a condition that is a requirement for the granting of an execution clause may be asserted as a ground for objection to the enforcement of a claim (negative) [2] A case where, after a lease agreement relating to land owned by B and others was concluded between A Corporation and B and others, mediation was reached between them in accordance with the provisions set out in the special terms and a mediation record was prepared; B and others applied for the granting of an execution clause and obtained the execution clause on the ground that A Corporation had violated the obligation of prohibition prescribed in the mediation clause, and A Corporation filed an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim asserting that its conduct did not constitute a violation of the obligation of prohibition prescribed in the mediation clause and other arguments; and the judgment of the court below, which had examined whether A Corporation had violated the obligation of prohibition prescribed in the mediation clause and, having found that there was no violation, refused compulsory execution with respect to the relevant portion of the mediation clause, was held to have misapprehended legal principles even though the question of whether A Corporation had violated the obligation of prohibition prescribed in the mediation clause is a matter that should be examined in an action for objection to the granting of an execution clause and the like, and cannot be regarded as a matter to be examined in an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim seeking exclusion of the enforceability of the mediation record
Summary of the holding
[1] 집행문부여의 요건인 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여와 관련된 집행문부여의 소 또는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소에서 주장·심리되어야 할 사항이지, 집행권원에 표시되어 있는 청구권에 관하여 생긴 이의를 내세워 그 집행권원이 가지는 집행력의 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리되어야 할 사항은 아니다. [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 등 사이에 을 등 소유 토지에 관한 임대차계약이 체결되고 특약사항에서 정한 바에 따라 그들 사이에 조정이 성립되어 조정조서가 작성되었는데, 을 등이 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였다는 이유로 집행분 부여신청을 하여 집행문을 부여받자, 갑 회사가 자신의 행위는 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무 위반에 해당하지 않는다는 등의 주장을 하면서 청구이의의 소를 제기한 사안에서, 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였다는 점은 조정조서의 집행을 위한 조건에 해당하므로 그 조건의 성취 여부는 집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소 등에서 심리되어야 할 사항일 뿐 조정조서의 집행력 배제를 구하는 청구이의의 소에서 심리될 사항이라고 볼 수 없는데도, 갑 회사가 조정조항에서 정한 금지의무를 위반하였는지 심리한 후 이를 위반한 것이 아니라고 보아 조정조서 정본에 기한 강제집행을 위 조정조항 부분에 관하여 불허한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제30조, 제44조, 제45조 / [2] 민사집행법 제30조, 제44조, 제45조, 민사조정법 제28조, 제29조, 민사소송법 제220조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger