Summary
This chapter reflects the rule that, where there are multiple grounds of objection, they must be asserted simultaneously.
4.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
조금씩 꺼내는 이의가 집행을 끝없이 미루는 방식이 되어서는 안 된다. 기존 사실에 관한 새 자료와 기준시점 뒤의 변제 사실을 구분해야 한다는 앞 단계의 구별을 받아, 이번에는 여러 이의사유를 차례로 나누어 낼 수 있는가라는 물음과 그 입구 기준을 묻는다. 채무자 B는 판결 뒤 변제했다고 주장하고 채권자 A는 이미 확정된 판결이라는 이유로 집행을 계속하려 한다. B가 이미 확정된 판결을 근거로 집행을 이어 가려 할 때, 이미 알고 있던 이의사유와 새로 확인한 이의사유를 나누어 두 번 세 번 제소하는 방식이 허용되는지가 쟁점이 된다. 그 판단은 집행 절차가 끝없이 늘어지는 것을 막는 요구와, 사유를 한 번에 모두 파악하기 어려운 당사자의 사정 사이의 긴장을 다룬다.
이 물음에 해당하는 원문은 민사집행법 제44조 제3항이다. 해당 규정은 “이의이유가 여러 가지인 때에는 동시에 주장하여야 한다”라고 선언한다(민사집행법 제44조). 이 문언에서 이의이유는 집행력 있는 정본에 기한 청구에 대항할 사유를, 주장은 그 사유를 법원에 제출하는 행위를 가리키는 것으로 읽힌다. 여러 가지라는 표현은 이의이유가 복수임을 가리키며, 동시에라는 표현은 복수 사유를 나누어 제출하지 말 것을 요구한다. 이 항 자체는 사유의 발생 시점이나 입증 방법에 관한 다른 쟁점을 다루지 않는다.
이 조문의 문언과 앞서 도출한 결론을 이으면, 이 구제의 통로가 열리는 기준이 나온다. 판결의 법정 기준시점 뒤에 청구 소멸 등 이의사유가 발생했고 해당 사유를 함께 주장한 경우, 청구취지에 특정된 청구에 대한 소로 방어할 수 있을 때 이 구제의 입구가 열린다. 여기서 사유의 발생과 사유의 증거 발견은 서로 다른 판단 단계다. 전자는 이의사유가 청구에 대항할 권리변동을 이루었는지를, 후자는 그 사유를 뒷받침하는 자료를 언제 손에 넣었는지를 묻는다. 동시 주장의 요구는 후자를 이유로 복수 사유를 나누어 두 번 세 번 제소하는 것을 막는 조건이지, 기준시점 전부터 있던 사유를 새 사유로 둔갑시키는 통로가 아니다.
당사자가 모든 사유를 한꺼번에 알기 어려울 수 있다는 반론은 실질적인 손실을 겨냥한다. 소송을 처음 낼 때 확인하지 못한 사유가 뒤늦게 드러나면, 동시에 주장하라는 요구가 오히려 진실에 다가가는 길을 막고 확정의 안정성만 키운다는 비판이다. 그러나 확인된 복수 이의사유를 순차 소송으로 분산하도록 쓸 수는 없다. 이미 함께 파악할 수 있었던 사유를 하나씩 꺼내어 집행을 차례로 멈추게 하는 방식은, 채권자 A가 확정판결에 기한 집행을 끝까지 마칠 수 없게 만들기 때문이다. 확정의 안정성을 지키려는 요구가 일부 사유를 놓칠 수 있다는 불리한 점을 지우지는 않지만, 그 불편을 순차 소송으로 옮겨 받는 방식은 허용되지 않는다.
이 합성 장면에서 이 물음에 속하는 사실은 B가 변제를 판결 뒤의 사유로 주장한다는 점과, A가 이미 확정된 판결을 집행의 근거로 삼는다는 점이다. 요구하는 급부·당사자·조건이 청구취지에 특정되는지와 선택한 소의 권리를 방어할 수 있는지를 이 장면만으로 확정할 수는 없으므로 그 부분은 미확정으로 남긴다. B가 실제 변제 시점과 함께 다른 이의사유도 확인해 두었다면 그 사유들을 함께 제시해야 한다. 영수증 발견일 대신 실제 변제일을 대조했을 때 기준시점 전이면 청구이의 가능성 판단을 고치는 조건에 이르면, 새 사유라는 결론은 달라진다. 변제 등 권리변동이 언제 발생했는지 기록으로 확인할 수 없을 때에는 새 발생 사유 요건 충족 여부를 확정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은 기준시점 뒤에 발생한 이의사유를 함께 제시한 뒤 그 사유로 이 구제의 입구를 여는 것이고, 허용하지 않는 것은 확인된 복수 이의사유를 나누어 두 번 세 번 제소하여 집행을 차례로 미루는 것이다. 기준시점 전부터 있던 사유에 관한 자료를 뒤늦게 찾았다는 사정만으로, 그 사유를 청구 소멸 등 기준시점 뒤의 권리변동으로 취급할 수는 없다. 이 판단은 여러 이의사유를 동시에 주장해야 한다는 요구를 설명한 것으로, 앞 판결의 효력 범위나 집행 정지의 효과까지 다룬 것은 아니다.
4.2The Conditions That Block Relief
그 결론은 기존 사실에 관한 새 자료와 기준시점 뒤의 변제 사실을 구분해야 한다는 전제이며, 이 절은 그 구별 위에서 확인된 복수 이의사유를 차례로 나누어 낼 수 있는지 묻는다. 채무자 B가 사유를 하나씩 이어 제기하여 집행을 늦추는 방식이 허용되는지, 그리고 그러한 분산이 막히는 조건이 무엇인지가 여기서 다루는 물음이다.
이 물음에 해당하는 문언은 민사집행법 제44조 제3항이다. 그 문언은 "이의이유가 여러 가지인 때에는 동시에 주장하여야 한다."(민사집행법 제44조)라고 정한다. 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 청구이의의 소를 제기하려는 당사자이고, 그 행위는 복수의 이의이유를 하나의 소 안에 함께 제시하는 것이며, 조건은 이의이유가 여러 가지인 때라는 점이다. 여기서 이의이유는 확정된 판결에 따른 청구에 대항할 수 있는 사유를 뜻하고, 동시 주장은 복수 이의이유를 함께 제시하는 요구를 가리키는 같은 용어이다. 이 조문의 다른 항이 규율하는 문제까지는 이 절의 해설 범위에 들어오지 않는다.
그 문언과 이 절의 결론을 잇는 줄기는 이렇다. 이의사유 자체는 기준시점 전부터 있었고 그 증거만 뒤에 발견하여 새 발생 사유 요건을 충족하지 못한 때에는 구제 통로가 닫힌다. 즉 이의사유의 발생과 그 증거의 발견은 별개의 단계로 구별해야 하고, 뒤늦은 발견만으로 사유의 발생 시점이 뒤로 밀리지 않는다. 이 구별이 무너지면 확인된 사유들을 나누어 반복 제기하는 길이 열리고, 그 결과 집행이 미뤄질 수 있다. 따라서 이 절의 결론은 요건의 하나라도 비면 구제가 막힌다는 것이지, 다른 요건이 충족된 사건에서 별도의 예외가 성립한다는 뜻이 아니다.
가장 강한 반론은 당사자가 모든 사유를 한꺼번에 알기 어렵다는 점을 겨눈다. 당시에 몰랐던 사정까지 배제하면 확정의 안정성이 진실을 압도할 수 있고, 자료를 다 모으지 못한 채 소를 내야 하는 당사자에게는 뒤늦게 발견한 사정조차 함께 내지 못하게 되는 불이익이 남는다. 그러나 확인된 복수 이의사유를 순차 소송으로 분산하도록 쓸 수는 없다는 답은 그대로 유지된다. 반론이 지적한 불편을 지우지 않더라도 분산 제기는 그 자체로 집행을 반복해서 늦추는 통로가 되어, 동시 주장 요구가 겨냥한 문제를 그대로 되살린다.
합성 장면에서 채무자 B는 판결 뒤 변제했다고 주장하고, 채권자 A는 이미 확정된 판결이라는 이유로 집행을 계속하려 한다. B가 변제를 내세우는 시점이 기준시점 뒤인지 앞인지, 그리고 그 변제 사실을 함께 주장했는지는 이 장면만으로는 정해져 있지 않다. 이의사유 자체가 기준시점 전부터 있었고 그 증거만 뒤에 발견한 것이라면 새 발생 사유 요건은 충족되지 않는다. 반대로 영수증 발견일 대신 실제 변제일을 대조했을 때 기준시점 전이면 청구이의 가능성을 달리 판단한다. 이 지점은 장면이 확정하지 못한 사실로 남아 있으며, 이로 인해 확정된 결론까지 바뀌는 것은 아니다.
따라서 확인된 복수 이의사유를 나누어 차례로 내는 방식은 이 구제의 통로가 아니며, 새 발생 사유 요건을 충족하지 못한 때 법정 요건 중 하나라도 비면 구제는 닫힌다. 그런데 이 판단이 열어 놓는 것은 구제의 가능 여부이지, 확정된 앞 판결의 이유를 모두 지워버리는 결과를 뜻하지는 않으며, 승패나 실제 회수 성과까지 확정하는 것도 아니다.
4.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
기존 사실에 관한 새 자료와 기준시점 뒤의 변제 사실을 구분해야 한다는 전제를 놓고, 여러 이의사유를 차례로 나누어 낼 수 있는가, 나아가 자료가 없어 확정할 수 없는 경계는 어디인가 하는 물음에 이르렀다.
해당 조문은 "이의이유가 여러 가지인 때에는 동시에 주장하여야 한다"라고 정한다(민사집행법 제44조). 여기서 주체는 이의사유를 내세우려는 당사자이고, 행위는 여러 이의이유의 제시이며, 조건은 그 사유가 여러 가지인 때이다. 이 문언은 이의이유가 복수인 경우의 주장 방식만을 다룬다.
민사집행법 제44조 제3항은 이의사유가 여러 가지인 때의 동시 주장을 요구하는 것이므로, 저자는 확인된 복수 이의사유를 순차 소송으로 분산하는 데는 쓸 수 없다고 보았다. 이와는 별도로, 변제나 권리변동이 발생한 때를 확인할 수 없는 경우에 판단 재료가 특정되지 않은 사항은 불능과 구별해 미확정으로 남긴다. 즉 자료가 없어 시점을 특정하지 못한 상태를 곧 이의의 문이 닫힌 결과로 바꾸지 않는다.
가장 강한 반론은 당시에 몰랐던 사정까지 배제하면 확정의 안정성이 진실을 압도한다는 점을 겨눈다. 당사자가 모든 사유를 한꺼번에 알기 어려울 수 있다는 사실을 지우면, 시점에 관한 자료가 늦게 갖추어진 경우까지 한 번의 주장에 묶어 버려 회복이 어려워진다. 다만 저자의 답은 흔들리지 않는다. 자료 부족은 미확정의 문제로 남기되, 이미 확인된 사유들까지 나누어 내는 수단으로 만들지는 않는다.
합성 장면에서는 채무자 B의 주장을 뒷받침할 변제 등 권리변동의 발생 시점과 그 기록이 쟁점이다. 저자가 정한 판단 재료는 변론종결 또는 선고 기록, 변제 등 권리변동 시점, 발견한 증거이다. 실제 변제일을 확인하면 그때가 기준시점 뒤인지 앞인지로 판정할 수 있지만, 시점을 확인할 자료가 없는 채로는 판단할 수 없다. 만약 실제 변제일을 기준으로 대조하여 기준시점 전임이 확인되면 청구이의 가능성 판단은 달라진다.
이 절에서 이의이유가 여러 가지인 때에는 동시에 주장하여야 한다는 규칙을 반영한 결론은, 확인된 복수 이의사유를 순차 소송으로 분산할 수 없다는 것과 판단 재료가 특정되지 않은 사항을 불능이 아닌 미확정으로 남긴다는 것이다. 변제나 권리변동의 시점조차 확인되지 않은 경우, 그 자리를 채운 결론을 내어 집행 가능성 자체를 단정하지 않는다. 다만 미확정의 표시는 조사나 증거의 결핍을 보여줄 뿐이고, 그 사유가 기준시점 전부터 있었다는 새로운 판단을 뜻하지는 않는다.
4.4The Records Needed for Determination
조금씩 꺼내는 이의가 집행을 끝없이 미루는 방식이 되어서는 안 된다는 걱정에서 이번 단계의 물음이 시작된다. 기존 사실에 관한 새 자료와 기준시점 뒤의 변제 사실을 구분해야 한다는 전제에서, 남는 물음은 그러한 자료들을 어떤 기록으로 판정하느냐이다. 이런 장면에서 B가 내놓은 사유가 하나인지 여러 개인지, 그리고 그 사유들을 한꺼번에 내야 하는지에 따라 절차가 갈린다. 물음은 분명하다. 여러 이의사유를 차례로 나누어 낼 수 있는가?
이 물음에 대해 법문은 짧게 답한다. 민사집행법 제44조는 “이의이유가 여러 가지인 때에는 동시에 주장하여야 한다”고 선언한다(민사집행법 제44조). 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 판결에 따라 확정된 청구에 관하여 이의하려는 채무자이고, 행위는 복수의 이의이유를 함께 제시하는 것이며, 조건은 그러한 사유가 여러 가지일 때이다. 여기서 동시 주장이란 복수 이의이유를 함께 제시하는 요구를 뜻한다. 이 규정이 청구이의소송에 관하여 열거한 다른 요건이나 효과까지 설명하는 것은 이번 단계의 몫이 아니다. 주어진 문언이 다만 함께 내야 한다는 규칙을 정한다는 점만 짚으면 된다.
이 문언을 이 절의 결론과 연결하면 단계 판정의 기준이 정해진다. 즉 변론종결 또는 선고 기록, 변제 등 권리변동이 발생한 시점, 발견한 증거에 기록된 자료만으로 단계를 판정한다는 것이다. 여기서 두 가지를 구별해야 한다. 하나는 사유가 언제 존재했는가에 관한 기존 사실이고, 다른 하나는 그 사유의 근거 자료가 언제 발견되었는가에 관한 문제이다. 뒤늦게 찾은 영수증은 발견의 시점을 적을 뿐이며 변제가 언제 이루어졌는지는 별개의 기록이 밝힌다. 단계 판정은 이처럼 정해진 기록으로만 한다. 없는 기록은 추정으로 메우지 않는다.
이 기준에 따른 불편은 분명하다. 당사자가 모든 사유를 한꺼번에 알기 어려울 수 있다. 소송 자료를 찾는 와중에 새로운 사정이 드러나는 일이 생길 수 있고, 그 시점에 이미 소를 제기한 채무자로서는 당황스러울 수 있다. 특히 확인된 복수 이의사유 중 일부만을 아는 상태에서 소를 내면 나머지를 잃게 되는 결과가 생길지 모른다는 점은 확정의 안정성이 진실을 압도한다는 걱정으로 이어진다. 그러나 저자가 이에 대해 내놓는 답은 분명하다. 사유를 하나씩 여러 소로 나누어 제기하는 것은 문언이 정한 동시 주장 요구에 어긋난다.
이 구별을 합성 장면에 비추어 보면, B가 내세운 변제가 실제로 언제 이루어졌는지가 핵심이 된다. 판결의 법정 기준시점 뒤에 청구 소멸 등 이의사유가 발생했고 B가 그 사유를 함께 주장한 경우에는 새 권리변동에 따른 청구이의 단계로 향할 여지가 있다. 반대로 이의사유 자체는 기준시점 전부터 있었고 그 증거만 뒤에 발견한 경우로서 새 발생 사유 요건을 충족하지 못하면 그 통로는 막힌다. 변제나 권리변동이 발생한 때를 확인할 수 없는 경우 그 단계는 미확정으로 남는다.
결국 이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 여러 이의사유를 차례로 나누어 내어 집행을 끝없이 미루는 방식은 쓸 수 없고, 확인된 사유는 함께 제시되어야 한다는 것이다. 이 결론이 당사자가 가진 자료를 추측으로 보완하거나, 실제로 존재하지 않는 기록을 만들어 내는 것을 허용하지는 않는다. 반대로 기록이 없다는 사실만으로 청구이의의 통로가 영구히 닫힌다고 단정할 수도 없다. 다만 그 자료가 확보되지 않은 상태에서의 판단은 미확정이다.
4.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
This proceeds on the premise of the earlier conclusion that new material concerning preexisting facts must be distinguished from facts of payment occurring after the statutory reference point. Even after that distinction is maintained, one question remains. May grounds for objection already known and grounds for objection newly confirmed be submitted in installments on multiple occasions? And what change overturns the stage assessment rendered earlier?
The language answering this question is found in the Civil Execution Act. Article 44, paragraph (3) of the Civil Execution Act provides, "Where there are multiple grounds for objection, they must be asserted simultaneously." The subject to which this language refers is a party intending to bring an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim; the act is the joint presentation of multiple grounds for objection; and the condition is that the grounds for objection be plural in number. Here, the term "simultaneous assertion" means the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together. This paragraph addresses only the point that it does not permit the method of raising and contesting the grounds for objection one by one in sequence.
Read together with the distinction set out above, this language makes the standard for the stage assessment clear. The author took the view that the case in which a party has discovered new material concerning preexisting facts must be distinguished from the case in which a change in rights has newly arisen after the statutory reference point. The former is a matter of the evidence discovered, while the latter is a matter of grounds for objection newly arising. If the designated change is confirmed, the existing blocking and effectiveness assessments are discarded and the assessment is redone from the stage onward.
The point most strongly targeted by the counterargument that a party may find it difficult to know all grounds at once is the resulting loss. Requiring circumstances that come to mind during preparation of the lawsuit or that are confirmed only later to be presented together may force an insufficiently prepared argument to be rushed, and may ultimately cause the loss of the very opportunity to contest those circumstances. The worry that the stability of finality will override the truth arises from the same place. Yet this cannot be used to disperse confirmed multiple grounds for objection into sequential lawsuits. To leave in place the disadvantage created by the preceding sentence while hoarding the confirmed grounds one by one and bringing them out again in the next lawsuit runs counter to the requirement of simultaneous assertion.
In the synthetic scene, the only facts that can be confirmed are that debtor B asserts payment after the judgment and that creditor A seeks to continue enforcement on the ground of finality. The records needed for the assessment are the record of the closing of oral arguments or pronouncement of judgment, the time of the payment or other change in rights, and the evidence discovered. From these records it is determined whether the actual date of payment falls after or before the statutory reference point of the judgment. If it falls after, an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights is available, and a case in which those grounds were asserted together satisfies the requirements. If the grounds for objection themselves existed before the statutory reference point and only their evidence was discovered later, the requirements for newly arising grounds are not met and the matter is barred. Where the time at which the payment or change in rights occurred cannot be ascertained, the matter remains undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. Inasmuch as multiple grounds for objection have been confirmed, sequential lawsuits cannot be used as a means of evading the requirement that those grounds be presented together; and if the result of comparing the actual date of payment against the statutory reference point differs from the existing assessment, that assessment may be discarded and rescored from the stage onward. What this section does not permit is equally clear. The time of discovery alone cannot substitute for the time at which the change in rights arose; unascertained facts cannot be invented to hasten a conclusion; and the single fact that enforcement has been blocked cannot be taken to mean that the reasons for the preceding judgment have been erased as well. That final question is not addressed here.
4.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
The preceding stage confirmed the premise that new material concerning preexisting facts must be distinguished from facts of payment occurring after the statutory reference point, and now one further question is set upon that distinction. What is it that B finds difficult to bear in this scene, and can that difficulty be resolved by presenting the grounds for objection in divided form?
The relevant language is short and categorical. Article 44, paragraph (3) of the Civil Execution Act provides, "Where there are multiple grounds for objection, they must be asserted simultaneously" (Civil Execution Act, Article 44). The subject spoken of by this provision is the party raising the objection, the act is the joint presentation of multiple grounds for objection, and the condition is that the grounds for objection are already plural in number. Here, simultaneous assertion means the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together. This language does not separately inquire into the time at which a ground arose or the time at which evidence was discovered; accordingly, nothing further can be read out of this paragraph with respect to other issues.
The distinction established by the preceding section supports this conclusion. The case in which the existence of a ground itself is at issue and the case in which the time at which the ground arose is at issue lie at different stages of judgment. The preceding stage confirmed that new material concerning preexisting facts and facts of payment occurring after the statutory reference point must be examined separately. The conclusion that confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be dispersed into sequential lawsuits operates at the former level. That is, splitting grounds that have already been confirmed and can be presented into multiple lawsuits does not accord with the requirement of simultaneous assertion. An objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights opens where grounds for objection such as extinction of the claim arose after the statutory reference point of the judgment and those grounds were asserted together, but this is a separate pathway for the case in which a new ground has arisen; it does not mean that already confirmed grounds may again be divided and presented.
The strongest counterargument arises from reading that sequence backwards. It is said that a party may find it difficult to know all grounds at once, and that, if circumstances unknown at the time are thereby excluded, the stability of finality overrides the truth. The loss to a person who could not present grounds of which he was unaware is real, and that disadvantage must not be erased. Yet this difficulty is not one that is resolved by permitting the grounds to be presented one after another. Confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be dispersed into sequential lawsuits, and this is merely a limited conclusion requiring that known grounds be presented together. Circumstances unknown at the time remain a matter to be dealt with separately at the stage of assessing an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights.
What is confirmed in the synthetic scene is the fact that B asserts payment and that A seeks to continue enforcement on the basis of the judgment that has already become final. If the payment asserted by B occurred after the statutory reference point of the judgment, that ground falls within the scope of grounds for objection that must be asserted together. Conversely, if the grounds for objection themselves existed before the statutory reference point and only their evidence was discovered later, and the requirements for newly arising grounds are not met, the pathway of objection to the enforcement of a claim does not open. Where the time at which the payment or change in rights occurred cannot be ascertained, the determination is left undetermined. On this scene alone, the outcome of the case or of the enforcement cannot be fixed.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted at this stage is narrow. Confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be dispersed into sequential lawsuits, and the rule requiring that multiple grounds for objection be presented together blocks that method. What is not permitted is an expansive interpretation in the opposite direction. The fact that a party who did not know all grounds at once is disadvantaged does not itself furnish grounds for already confirmed grounds to be divided and presented, nor does this conclusion embrace an interpretation that would also close the pathway for newly arisen grounds such as facts of payment occurring after the statutory reference point. The scope of the effect of this conclusion upon the preceding judgment remains to be determined.
4.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
In the scene where debtor B asserts payment after the judgment and creditor A seeks to continue enforcement on the ground that the judgment has already become final, the question is reached whether B may bring forward still other circumstances. By the conclusion of the preceding section, confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be dispersed into sequential lawsuits. Taking up that premise, this section addresses the question whether multiple grounds for objection may be brought forward in divided form. To bring them forward in divided form means the method of filing suit first on one ground and then filing suit again on the remaining grounds, contesting the enforcement separately. While creditor A's enforcement continues, it must be settled whether B may carry on such procedures several times or whether he must gather the grounds and present them at once. This question concerns not the content of the grounds for objection but the timing and bundling of their submission.
That language is: "③Where there are multiple grounds for objection, they must be asserted simultaneously." In this language, the subject is the party raising grounds for objection in the objection lawsuit, the act is the assertion of the grounds for objection, and the condition is the case in which the grounds for objection are multiple. Here, grounds for objection mean grounds that prevent enforcement based on a final judgment, and "the case in which they are multiple" refers to the case in which two or more grounds have been confirmed. What the language requires is not that those grounds be raised separately in different lawsuits, but that they be raised together. This paragraph does not determine the requirements of other paragraphs or the issues throughout the objection lawsuit; it governs only the bundling of submissions when there are multiple grounds.
This language connects with the conclusion that, where there are multiple grounds for objection, they must be asserted simultaneously. Simultaneous assertion means the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together, and this requirement points in the same direction as the rule of the preceding section. The reason the two must be distinguished is that they address different questions. The preceding section asks whether confirmed multiple grounds for objection may be dispersed into sequential lawsuits, while the language of this section determines how they must be submitted when there are multiple grounds. When the judgment forbidding dispersion is placed together with the rule requiring joint presentation, the grounds for objection are gathered and contested within a single lawsuit. The time at which a new ground arose, and its requirements, are not matters determined by this paragraph, so no such judgment can be drawn from this language.
The counterargument remains that a party may find it difficult to know all grounds at once. At the time suit is filed, only one ground may come to mind and other grounds may be confirmed later; and if such a party is required to present all grounds together, the disadvantage arises that grounds not yet known are lost. It is also pointed out that, if circumstances unknown at the time are excluded, the stability of finality overrides the truth. This disadvantage and inconvenience are not erased, and the requirement that the grounds be gathered and presented does not lessen that burden. Still, so long as the answer that confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be dispersed into sequential lawsuits is maintained, the method of dividing already confirmed grounds and splitting them into multiple lawsuits is not permitted. The counterargument concerns grounds that were not known, and it does not change the judgment concerning the bundling of submission of confirmed grounds.
In the synthetic scene, B asserts payment after the judgment, and that payment may correspond to a ground arising after the statutory reference point of the judgment. Where B has additionally confirmed other grounds for objection, those grounds must be presented together pursuant to this language. The records needed for the judgment are the record of the closing of oral arguments or pronouncement of judgment, the time at which the payment or other change in rights arose, and the evidence discovered. If the actual date of payment is not confirmed, the time of the change in rights also remains undetermined, and the availability of an objection to the enforcement of a claim is not settled. This comparison is merely a test that alters the conditions of assessment; it does not mean that such facts actually occurred in the scene. So far as concerns the method of submitting multiple confirmed grounds, B must present the grounds together rather than dividing them into multiple submissions.
The conclusion permitted by this section extends to the requirement that, where there are multiple grounds for objection, those grounds must be presented together. Dividing the grounds one by one and contesting the enforcement separately through multiple lawsuits does not accord with this requirement. However, this conclusion does not determine the time at which grounds arose or their requirements, nor does it judge which grounds are newly arisen, so those issues remain separate. The time of payment left undetermined, or unconfirmed facts, cannot be read instead as meaning that no ground exists.
4.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
On the premise that new material concerning preexisting facts must be distinguished from facts of payment occurring after the statutory reference point, the question asked is whether payment arising after the judgment can prevent enforcement of a right that has become final. Whether multiple grounds for objection may be brought forward in divided form in sequence is not addressed here.
Under the current notation of the Korea Law Information Center, the provision reads, "③Where there are multiple grounds for objection, they must be asserted simultaneously" (Civil Execution Act, Article 44). The subject referred to by this language is a party intending to bring an action for objection to the enforcement of a claim; the act is the presentation of the multiple grounds for objection that he possesses; and the condition is the case in which those grounds exist in the plural. Here, grounds for objection refer to grounds by which one may resist a claim based on an enforceable copy, and simultaneous assertion means the requirement that such multiple grounds for objection be presented together. This paragraph is not a provision determining the time at which grounds for objection arise or the effect by which enforcement actually stops, so no further issues can be read out of this paragraph.
The language of this provision and the conclusion of this section are situated at different stages. The language fixes the procedural manner of presentation, and the conclusion takes up that manner of presentation to answer whether multiple grounds for objection may be brought forward in divided form in sequence. The reason the distinction drawn earlier between preexisting facts and payment after the statutory reference point matters is that, if two classes with different sources of grounds are mixed in a single case, what must be presented together itself becomes blurred. That is, the requirement of simultaneous assertion functions not as a means of endlessly deferring the filing of suit, but as a device that compels the grounds necessary to block enforcement without overturning the preceding judgment to be presented in one place.
The loss targeted by this counterargument is plain. If grounds learned later are excluded, the stability of finality is preserved, but the opportunity for a judgment closer to the truth disappears. That disadvantage must not be erased. Yet this difficulty does not become a pathway for dispersing confirmed multiple grounds for objection into sequential lawsuits, for the very requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together was established to prevent such dispersion. Accordingly, the conclusion maintained by this section is that, where there are multiple confirmed grounds, those grounds must be presented together, and the circumstance that they were difficult to know at once is left as a matter to be dealt with elsewhere.
Only two facts are relevant in the synthetic scene. One is that debtor B asserts payment after the judgment; the other is that creditor A seeks to continue enforcement on the ground of the judgment that has already become final. Contrasting these two facts with the foregoing conditions, the stage of an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights arises where the asserted payment occurred after the statutory reference point as a ground for objection such as extinction of the claim and where that ground was presented together. The record of the closing of oral arguments or pronouncement of judgment, the time of the payment or other change in rights, and the evidence discovered are designated as the records to be confirmed, but no actual records have been collected. If the time at which the payment or change in rights occurred cannot be ascertained, the judgment remains undetermined.
The boundary between the conclusion this section permits and the conclusion it does not permit is as follows. What is permitted is the application of the requirement that, where multiple confirmed grounds for objection exist, those grounds must be presented together, and this holds equally for an objection to the enforcement of a claim founded on payment arising after the judgment. What is not permitted is the method of filing multiple lawsuits by dividing such grounds one at a time. Whether payment after the judgment prevents enforcement varies according to whether each ground arose after the statutory reference point, and this section does not newly set the standard for that time of arising. That enforcement is prevented is not equivalent to erasing all the reasons of the preceding judgment; the effect of the preceding judgment remains intact.
4.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
This passage takes as its premise the need to distinguish new material concerning existing facts from facts of payment after the cutoff date, and, alongside the question whether several grounds for objection may be raised one after another, it asks which wording to apply to an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights. Rather than reconstructing the argument of the preceding section, it confirms whether the wording of the corresponding basis alone may be used as the criterion of decision for this question.
The source text corresponding to this question is one of the paragraphs of Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act. That wording declares: "Where there are several grounds for objection, they shall be asserted simultaneously" (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act). Here, grounds for objection refer to the causes of extinction or prevention that the debtor raises against enforcement based on a final and conclusive judgment, and "where there are several" means a case in which two or more such causes are confirmed. The expression "shall be asserted simultaneously" fixes the subject as the debtor who possesses grounds for objection, the act as the combined presentation of multiple causes, and the condition as the plurality of causes. Matters regulated by other paragraphs of the Article are not drawn into this explanation of the wording.
The requirement of combined presentation signified by this wording is used, when adjudicating an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights, as the sole criterion of decision within the scope of that source text. This distinction is meant to separate the question of defining the scope of application of the wording from the question of adding arguments from outside the Article. As confirmed earlier, new material concerning existing facts must be distinguished from facts of payment after the cutoff date, and this distinction does not overlap with the manner of presenting multiple causes that the wording addresses. Accordingly, the requirement of the established wording and the determination of the time when a new change in rights arises are placed in separate positions, and one does not substitute for a requirement of the other.
The point that a party may find it difficult to know all causes at once squarely reveals the inconvenience this rule imposes. Some causes are not confirmed during the lawsuit, some evidence is discovered late, and meanwhile the creditor's enforcement may continue. In such a case, requiring a debtor who could not present circumstances he did not know to combine causes appears to put the stability of finality ahead of access to the truth. Yet confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be used in such a way as to disperse them into sequential lawsuits. The answer the author sets does not waver at this point, and the method of setting aside already confirmed causes and raising them again later is not a procedural operation permitted by the wording of the simultaneous assertion requirement. Without erasing its adverse aspect, this wording is used as a criterion only within its scope of application.
Returning to the synthetic scene, what B asserts is payment as a change in rights after the judgment, and what A relies on is the judgment already final and conclusive. This question is confined to the case in which B's causes are confirmed in plurality in this confrontation, and it tests only whether those causes were presented together against the wording. If, as a result, the case falls within "where there are several grounds for objection" and combined presentation was made, the requirement of simultaneous assertion is satisfied, but this determination does not fix the time or amount of the payment, or whether performance actually occurred. Conversely, where the time when the payment or change in rights occurred cannot be confirmed, no decision can be reached on the basis of this wording alone, and the matter remains undetermined. If the actual date of performance is confirmed to fall before the cutoff date, the assessment of the possibility of an objection to the enforcement of a claim changes.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. When adjudicating the manner of presenting multiple grounds for objection in an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights, only the wording of Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act is taken as the criterion, and only the question whether the simultaneous assertion required by that wording has been established is determined. This wording does not permit conclusions that newly fix the time and content of payment, that draw the arguments stated in the reasons for the judgment into the basis of decision, or that fill unconfirmed records with conjecture. A state of insufficient materials is merely undetermined and does not immediately become incurable.
4.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
In a scene of this kind, after an objection to the enforcement of a claim is raised on the basis of a change in rights newly arising after the judgment became final and conclusive, the question remains which part within it is again to be separated out for decision. So that the presentation of new causes and the method of bringing up already known causes again are not mixed together, the boundary for separate adjudication must first be set.
The wording corresponding to this question is Article 44, paragraph (3) of the Civil Execution Act, which provides: "Where there are several grounds for objection, they shall be asserted simultaneously." The subject this wording addresses is the party seeking to block enforcement by objection; the act is presenting together the several grounds for objection that he possesses; and the condition is the case in which the grounds for objection are several in number. The author calls this requirement simultaneous assertion, that is, the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together. This paragraph provides only how several causes are to be presented together; it does not further determine which causes are new causes.
Connecting this wording with the distinction drawn earlier, the parts to be separately adjudicated within an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights are limited to three conditions. First is the case in which the route operates, that is, where a ground for objection such as extinction of the claim arose after the legal cutoff date of the judgment and that ground was asserted together with the others. Next is the case in which the route is blocked, that is, where the ground for objection itself existed from before the cutoff date and only its evidence was discovered later, so that the requirement of a newly arising cause is not met. These two cases must be distinguished because the time of discovery and the time the change in rights arose point to different moments. To these there is separately added the case in which the time when the payment or change in rights occurred cannot be confirmed, but that case remains undetermined. Beyond these three conditions no new stage is created.
The strongest objection aims at the point that a party may find it difficult to know all causes at once. The criticism follows that, if circumstances unknown at the time are excluded, the stability of finality overwhelms the truth. This loss is not erased; the answer the author sets is that confirmed multiple grounds for objection cannot be used in such a way as to disperse them into sequential lawsuits. For if causes that are already confirmed and could be presented together are divided up one by one and deferred into multiple lawsuits, enforcement would be postponed without end. This answer, however, remains within the scope of requiring the simultaneous presentation of confirmed causes, and does not regard cases in which causes were passed over in ignorance as already covered.
In the synthetic scene, the facts corresponding to this question are only the assertion of the debtor B that the payment took place after the judgment and the request of the creditor A to continue enforcement of the final and conclusive judgment. Testing these facts against the foregoing conditions, if the payment occurred after the cutoff date and was asserted together with the others, the case falls within the case in which the route operates; if the payment itself had already taken place before the cutoff date and only the receipt was found later, the case may fall within the case in which the route is blocked. However, because the scene does not fix when B made the payment or when he found the receipt, which of the two applies remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is that, within an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights, the parts to be separately adjudicated are limited to the three conditions of the case in which the route operates, the case in which it is blocked, and the case that remains undetermined. Here simultaneous assertion is understood as the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together, and dispersing confirmed multiple grounds for objection into sequential lawsuits is not permitted. What this conclusion does not permit, however, is the reading that would treat cases in which one learned of the cause only after the time of confirmation as covered all at once. The question of the time left undetermined is a lack of materials and does not immediately mean that relief is impossible.
4.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
In a scene of this kind, an action of objection to the enforcement of a claim is a procedure by which enforcement under a final and conclusive judgment is blocked or contested as void on stated grounds, and the question now is whether several grounds for objection may be raised one after another. If they may be raised one after another, the debtor could first assert payment, next assert a right, and then assert other circumstances, halting enforcement at each stage, while the creditor would have to take back the same final and conclusive judgment each time. Whether such repetition is possible, or whether everything must be raised at once, is the issue here.
To answer this question, the corresponding wording is Article 44, paragraph (3) of the Civil Execution Act, which provides that "where there are several grounds for objection, they shall be asserted simultaneously" (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act). Here, grounds for objection refer to the individual circumstances by which, against a claim under a final and conclusive judgment, enforcement is stopped or its effect is contested; "where there are several" means a case in which two or more such circumstances are confirmed. Assertion means the act of presenting those causes concretely in the complaint or in the course of the hearing, and "simultaneously" designates the manner of putting confirmed multiple causes forward together in one place. This wording does not determine the time when the causes arose or were discovered, and lays down only a requirement as to how already confirmed causes are to be presented.
The basis connecting this requirement with the conclusion of this section lies in the structure of its wording. That is, where it is confirmed that there are several causes, each of them must be presented at once; this is the instruction of the Article, and if that instruction is observed, the judgment that blocks enforcement and the judgment that is blocked can both be concluded within a single lawsuit. The reason the two determinations must be distinguished lies not in the content of the causes but in the time of their arising. Where a ground for objection such as extinction of the claim arose after the legal cutoff date of the judgment and that ground was asserted together with the others, an objection to the enforcement of a claim is opened on that ground; where the ground for objection itself existed from before the cutoff date and only its evidence was discovered later, the requirement of a newly arising cause is not met and the route is blocked. If these are examined together in one place, the stage of contesting the time of arising of the cause and the stage of contesting the joint presentation are separated.
The objection that a party may find it difficult to know all causes at once most strongly targets the burden of litigation and the asymmetry of information. At first one may recall only the fact of payment and present that; later, when one finds documents of a change in rights or an old receipt and seeks to file suit again, one may meet the procedural barrier that the matter has already been dealt with once, and that loss falls not on the debtor but on the party who learned of the circumstances late. If that use were permitted, enforcement would stop at each stage and the stability of the final and conclusive judgment would be shaken; therefore the dispersal of already confirmed causes is not left outside the requirement of simultaneous assertion. The problem of circumstances not yet known remains a separate matter, but dividing confirmed multiple causes and presenting them separately is not permitted.
Testing this fact against the foregoing conditions, where the payment occurred after the legal cutoff date of the judgment and that ground was asserted together with the others, the case falls within the opening condition for an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights. However, the scene does not fix when the payment was actually performed, when the receipt was discovered, or what remains in the records of the close of oral argument or the pronouncement of judgment. Where the time when the payment or the change in rights occurred cannot be confirmed, neither opening nor blocking can be settled, and the matter remains undetermined.
What this section permits is this: where, in a case in which there are several causes, those causes were presented together, one obtains a determination blocking enforcement upon confirming that a ground for objection such as extinction of the claim arose after the legal cutoff date of the judgment; where the ground for objection itself existed from before the cutoff date and only its evidence was discovered later, the case falls on the side of being blocked because the requirement of a newly arising cause is not met. If the time when the payment or the change in rights occurred cannot be confirmed, the matter is left undetermined, and it is not asserted that relief is impossible merely because there are no materials. The method of presenting causes little by little across several lawsuits is not permitted by this section.
4.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
Before this scene, the question now is whether several grounds for objection may be raised one after another. It must be settled whether the method of bringing out confirmed causes one by one and contesting each in a separate lawsuit is permitted, or whether they must be presented together. In a dispute over a judgment already final and conclusive, the very manner of conducting the procedure is at issue.
Here, grounds for objection mean the causes the debtor raises to block enforcement based on a final and conclusive enforceable copy, and "where there are several" refers to a case in which such causes exist in plurality. The expression "shall be asserted simultaneously" requires that these multiple causes be presented together. This Article does not determine the requirements for the arising of a cause or the criterion of decision; it deals only with the timing and bundling of presentation.
The requirement this wording lays down is simultaneous assertion, and here simultaneous assertion means the requirement that multiple grounds for objection be presented together. This requirement and the requirements for the establishment of an objection to the enforcement of a claim are separate stages of decision. When the cause arose, and which point is taken as the reference, are matters already dealt with in the distinctions made up to the preceding section; this stage asks only how the confirmed causes are to be arranged. Accordingly, if a cause that arose after the cutoff date is confirmed, the manner of presenting that cause together with the others is required, and the act of observing that requirement is judged separately from the establishment of the cause itself.
The strongest objection arises from the point that a party may find it difficult to know all causes at once. The criticism follows that, if circumstances unknown at the time are excluded, the stability of finality overwhelms the truth. This disadvantage is not erased. The method of dividing confirmed causes and carrying each into a new lawsuit becomes a channel for postponing enforcement without end, and it runs counter to the requirement of joint presentation set by the Article. The treatment of causes that were not known remains a different matter, and dispersing already confirmed causes is not permitted.
In the synthetic scene, what the debtor B asserts is a single ground for objection, namely payment after the judgment, while the creditor A seeks to continue enforcement on the ground that the judgment is already final and conclusive. Where a ground for objection such as extinction of the claim arose after the legal cutoff date of the judgment and that ground was asserted together with the others, it is dealt with at the stage of an objection to the enforcement of a claim based on a new change in rights. Where the cause itself existed from before the cutoff date and only its evidence was discovered later, the requirement of a newly arising cause is not met and that route is blocked. The part in which the time when the payment or the change in rights occurred cannot be confirmed remains undetermined.
What this section permits is the manner of presenting confirmed multiple grounds for objection together; what it does not permit is the manner of dividing those causes and presenting them in sequential lawsuits. This determination concerns the manner of presenting causes, and does not go so far as to determine whether each cause is actually established or what effects arise. The question of how the reasons of the earlier judgment are to be treated when enforcement of the final and conclusive judgment is blocked is a question beyond this determination. If enforcement is blocked, are the reasons of the earlier judgment also entirely erased?