Guide to Remedies in Civil Enforcement

Based on 44 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

Even if you object to compulsory enforcement, the available remedy—such as an action to object to a claim, an action by a third party to object to enforcement, or a procedure concerning an execution clause—depends on the enforcement title and the right you are contesting. Filing an action does not automatically stay enforcement, and you should also check when the grounds for objection arose and what stage the enforcement has reached.

People involved → Person facing enforcement → Enforcement creditor → Third-party rights holder → Enforcement is underway and you want to challenge it → Is the claim in the title inconsistent with the current legal position? → Yes — Civil Execution Act Article 44 → Bring an action to object to a claim → No → Do you have a right in the property that you can assert against the creditor? → Yes — Civil Execution Act Article 48 → Check the route for the right or title third-party action or clause challenge → Is the dispute about a condition for granting an execution clause? → Yes — Civil Execution Act Article 30(2) → Check when the objection grounds arose → For a judgment, grounds generally must arise after oral arguments concluded → Check whether you need a separate stay → Filing an action does not automatically stop enforcement → Check the title and enforcement stage → A person who acquires…

Key points

An action to object to a claim is a procedure for seeking to exclude all or part of the enforceability of an enforcement title on the ground that the claim stated in it does not accord with the current substantive legal position (Civil Execution Act, Article 44 (민사집행법 제44조)).
As a general rule, an action to object to a claim based on a judgment must rely on grounds that arose after the conclusion of oral arguments. The cases explain that this timing restriction does not apply to final payment orders or recommendations to perform and similar titles (Civil Execution Act, Article 44(2) and Article 58(3) (민사집행법 제44조 제2항, 제58조 제3항); Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 5-8(3) (소액사건심판법 제5조의8 제3항)).
Even if a person accepted an inheritance subject to limited liability before judgment but did not raise it in the lawsuit, the person may contest the scope of enforcement in an action to object to a claim if the judgment did not determine the scope of liability. Renunciation of inheritance, however, concerns the existence of the inheritance debt itself and cannot be contested in the same way (Cases 1, 3, and 15).
A debt is not extinguished merely because the requirements for setoff are met; a declaration of setoff is required for it to take effect. Accordingly, a declaration of setoff made after the conclusion of oral arguments in the proceedings that resulted in the judgment may be a ground for an action to object to a claim (Civil Act, Articles 492 and 493 (민법 제492조·제493조); Case 4).
A third party who has ownership or another right in property subject to enforcement that can be asserted against the enforcement creditor may seek to exclude enforcement by bringing an action by a third party to object to enforcement. This remedy may not be available, however, where the person cannot assert the relevant right against the enforcement creditor, as may be the case for an indirect possessor or a person who has entrusted title to another (Civil Execution Act, Article 48 (민사집행법 제48조); Cases 6, 9, 14, and 21).
Whether a condition required for granting an execution clause has been fulfilled must be contested in an action for the grant of an execution clause or an action challenging the grant of an execution clause. This issue must be distinguished from those that may be contested in an action to object to a claim (Civil Execution Act, Article 30(2) (민사집행법 제30조 제2항); Case 18).
Filing an action to object to a claim does not automatically stay enforcement. A separate application is required for the court to order a stay or other relief. One case held that filing only an action for confirmation of nonexistence of a debt does not satisfy the requirements for interim relief staying enforcement (Civil Execution Act, Article 46 (민사집행법 제46조); Cases 16 and 23).
A person who acquires a claim under an enforcement title must also obtain a succession execution clause to continue enforcement based on the existing enforcement title (Civil Execution Act, Article 31(1) (민사집행법 제31조 제1항); Civil Execution Rules, Article 23 (민사집행규칙 제23조); Cases 2 and 20).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can I stop enforcement based on the fact that I already paid after the judgment became final?

If payment was made after the conclusion of oral arguments in the proceedings that resulted in the judgment, you may seek to have the judgment’s enforceability excluded by bringing an action to object to a claim. However, filing the action does not automatically stop enforcement, so you must separately apply for a stay of enforcement.

Case 16

Q. I accepted an inheritance subject to limited liability or renounced the inheritance before judgment, but did not raise it in the lawsuit. Can I contest it now?

If the judgment did not determine the scope of liability, a qualified acceptance of inheritance may later be raised in an action to object to a claim to contest the scope of enforcement. The cases explain, however, that renunciation of inheritance concerns the existence of the inheritance debt itself, so an action to object to a claim cannot be brought on that same basis after the judgment becomes final.

Case 1, Case 3, Case 15

Q. I could have set off the claim before judgment, but notified the other party of the setoff afterward. Is that a ground for an action to object to a claim?

A setoff does not extinguish a debt merely because the requirements for setoff are met; a declaration of setoff is also required. The cases explain that a declaration of setoff made after the conclusion of oral arguments may constitute a valid ground for an action to object to a claim.

Case 4

Q. What procedure can I use to contest the seizure of property or a claim owned by someone else?

If you have an ownership right or another right in the property subject to enforcement that you can assert against the enforcement creditor, you may seek to exclude enforcement by bringing an action by a third party to object to enforcement. You must, however, consider whether the right can be asserted against the enforcement creditor and whether it was acquired at or after the time of enforcement.

Case 9, Case 14, Case 21

Q. An amount was imposed for indirect compulsion. Can I argue in an action to object to a claim that I did not actually breach the obligation?

The cases treat whether an obligation to refrain from an act was breached as a condition for granting an execution clause for an order of indirect compulsion. They explain that this issue must therefore be contested in an action for the grant of an execution clause or an action challenging the grant of an execution clause, and cannot be contested in an action to object to a claim.

Case 18

Q. Does filing an action to object to a claim immediately stop enforcement proceedings that are already underway?

No. Filing an action to object to a claim does not suspend enforcement, so you must separately apply to the court for interim relief, such as a stay of enforcement. One case also held that filing only an action for confirmation of nonexistence of a debt does not satisfy the requirements for such an application.

Case 16, Case 23

Q. Can someone who acquires a claim stated in an enforcement title immediately collect a seized claim?

The cases explain that even if a person has acquired a claim stated in an enforcement title, the person cannot collect the seized claim as an enforcement creditor without first obtaining a succession execution clause. To continue existing enforcement proceedings, the person must also submit an authenticated copy of the enforcement title bearing a succession execution clause.

Case 20

Q. Can I claim compensation from the State if I suffered loss because a property statement for an auction sale was prepared incorrectly?

The State may be held liable to compensate for loss if a court or its official, in breach of an official duty, provides incorrect or unclear information about legal relationships and a purchaser consequently suffers loss that could not have been anticipated. However, if the purchaser was also negligent in failing to properly check the relevant materials, that negligence may be taken into account in determining the amount of damages.

Case 5

Relevant laws

Civil Execution Act, Article 22 (민사집행법 제22조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 30(2) (민사집행법 제30조 제2항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 31(1) (민사집행법 제31조 제1항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 44 (민사집행법 제44조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 46 (민사집행법 제46조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 48 (민사집행법 제48조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 52(1) and (2) (민사집행법 제52조 제1항·제2항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 57 (민사집행법 제57조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 58(3) (민사집행법 제58조 제3항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 59(3) (민사집행법 제59조 제3항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 105 (민사집행법 제105조)
Civil Execution Act, Article 154(2) (민사집행법 제154조 제2항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 227(4) (민사집행법 제227조 제4항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 229(6) (민사집행법 제229조 제6항)
Civil Execution Act, Article 288 (민사집행법 제288조)

Watch out for

For an action to object to a claim based on a judgment, when the ground for objection arose is important. As a general rule, grounds that already existed before the conclusion of oral arguments cannot be asserted in such an action. The cases explain that separate timing rules apply to payment orders and certain other titles.
Filing an action to object to a claim or an action by a third party to object to enforcement does not, by itself, stay enforcement. Check whether a separate application, such as an application for a stay of enforcement, is needed.
An action by a third party to object to enforcement requires that the right in question be assertable against the enforcement creditor. Consider both whether the right—such as ownership or an assignment of a claim—was established and whether it can be asserted against the enforcement.
An action to object to a claim, an action by a third party to object to enforcement, litigation concerning an execution clause, and an objection to a seizure order have different subject matters and requirements. Take care not to bring an action to object to a claim when the issue actually concerns the requirements for an execution clause or the property subject to enforcement.

Exercising Set-off Rights After a Final Court Judgment

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).