1. As to the grounds of appeal on paragraphs (2) and (3) of the appellate brief

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected all of the defendant's arguments on the premise that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which ordered the defendant to deliver the house to the defendant was revoked by the judgment of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2008Na8906, 2009Na1322 (Counterclaim), which is the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff sought non-permission of compulsory execution by the lawsuit of this case, or changed to order the return and redemption of the plaintiff's lease deposit. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the judgment.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 4

The expenses necessary for compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the obligor and shall be reimbursed preferentially in the course of the execution. Such expenses shall be collected together with the claims indicated in the enforcement title in the compulsory execution procedure concerned, based on the relevant enforcement title, which serves as the basis for the execution without any separate enforcement title. Thus, in a case of objection, even if the original obligation indicated in the enforcement title is extinguished by repayment or deposit, unless the expenses for execution that the obligor is liable to reimburse are not reimbursed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Da2356, Sept. 26, 1989; 89Meu121, Dec. 121, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of executory power of the judgment by recognizing that the plaintiff deposited the principal and interest of this case, which is the executive title of this case, and the remaining principal and interest were offset against the balance of the execution cost that he

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted that as a preparatory document dated December 3, 2009 and October 1, 2010, the defendant applied for compulsory execution to recover the principal and interest recognized in the judgment, and the execution cost was not paid, and thus, the plaintiff cannot seek an exemption from the enforcement force of the judgment above. In light of the above legal principles, the court below should have deliberated whether the plaintiff has to reimburse, but the court below failed to reach this point, which erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim objection suit, and failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)