2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Kadan200290, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting part of the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that “Compulsory enforcement based on the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2006Na3638 regarding the Plaintiff shall not be permitted only to exceed KRW 17,453,397,” on February 6, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2014Na17465, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 23, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da58849 Decided October 13, 2016. The Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal to the effect that “The Plaintiff’s appeal was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the appropriation of performance by dividends for the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate, the application of statutory appropriation of performance under Article 479 of the Civil Act, and the subject of confession, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and reversed and remanded the said judgment

On August 18, 2017, the court of the reversed and remanded trial held that: (a) the Defendant first appropriated the dividends paid for the compulsory auction of this case to the claim for provisional payment that the Defendant claimed as the expense; (b) there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant received the dividends for KRW 11,563,898; and (c) the Defendant appropriated the funds paid for the compulsory auction of this case and the distribution procedure of this case in the order of expenses, interest, and originals; and (d) as a result, the compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be limited to KRW 19,293,843 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 8, 2017 to the date of full payment.