A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment, which became final and conclusive after the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, and filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under this Court’s 201Na28259, which is the appellate court, and the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22501, which is the final and conclusive appellate court (hereinafter collectively referred to as “previous litigation case”), with respect to the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2981, which is the final and conclusive appellate court.

On February 16, 2016, a decision was rendered to confirm that the Plaintiff was KRW 11,204,700 in the amount of litigation expenses to be repaid to the Defendant by the judgment on the instant case, and the said decision (hereinafter “instant decision”) became final and conclusive as all appeals and reappeals were dismissed.

B. Based on the instant decision, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Youngcheon District Court Young-gu Branch C, Chuncheon District Court for compulsory execution procedure (hereinafter “instant enforcement procedure”).

Accordingly, the Defendant deposited KRW 11,954,70,00 in total, KRW 11,204,70 according to the instant decision and KRW 750,00 in the enforcement procedure of the instant case, as the head of 19,000,000 from January 8, 2018, which was received on January 8, 2018, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act.

Since then, the Defendant reserved and received an objection to KRW 11,954,700 deposited as above.

C. The execution cost incurred during the instant enforcement procedure and its details are as indicated in the separate execution cost statement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts, absence of dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-6 evidence (where there are numbers in documentary evidence, the indication is omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s enforcement of compulsory execution based on the instant decision is against the content of judicial compromise made in the Chuncheon District Court 2013Na7008 (principal suit), 2013Na7015 (Counterclaim), and is not permissible as it constitutes tort and abuse of rights.