청구이의
1. Based on the Defendant’s final decision on the amount of litigation costs for the Defendant’s High Government District Court Decision 2014Kao 5015.
1. In fact, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff and B for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in the loans case with the High Government District Court Decision 2013Da23412, and “The amount of litigation costs to be repaid by the Plaintiff and B to the Defendant shall be determined as KRW 1,561,013, respectively.”
(The Court rendered the instant decision (hereinafter “instant decision”). Based on the instant decision, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate based on the instant decision, and rendered a decision to commence the auction on November 16, 2018.
(D) On December 4, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant with additional payment of KRW 1,60,430, including KRW 1,561,01 and KRW 27,217, registration license tax, KRW 5,000, and KRW 5,000 (Seoul Eastern District Court No. 3645, Apr. 9, 2019; hereinafter “instant deposit”), KRW 1,247,890 (total execution cost 1,287,311 – KRW 39,411); KRW 27,217, registration license tax, KRW 7,200; KRW 5,430, and KRW 1,600, KRW 205, KRW 300, KRW 105, KRW 417, and KRW 39,417, respectively (Seoul East District Court No. 2019, KRW 905, KRW 2005, KRW 305,5195, respectively).
2. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's obligation pursuant to the decision of this case against the defendant should be dismissed since all of the obligations pursuant to the decision of this case were extinguished by the above deposits.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that unless the plaintiff fully reimburses the costs of execution, the full exclusion of the executive force of the decision of this case cannot be claimed.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the original obligation indicated in the decision of this case, which is the executive title, is the plaintiff's defendant.