A. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and C for a payment order claiming wages, etc. under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Order 2014Gu718. On March 5, 2014, the above court rendered a payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff, C, jointly and severally, shall pay to the Defendant an amount of KRW 13,503,156 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized around that time.

B. Upon the instant payment order, the Defendant applied for an auction on the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that since all of the debt amount and the expenses for demand procedure based on the payment order of this case have been repaid, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted, but the defendant alleged to the purport that all of the expenses of a certified judicial scrivener for the payment order of this case and the expenses for the execution of a request for auction shall be repaid.

B. The costs required for compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act, which are borne by the obligor, and are paid by the obligor first in the course of such execution. Such costs are based on the title of execution, which serves as the basis for such execution without any separate title, and can be collected together with the claims indicated in the title of execution in the compulsory execution procedure concerned. As such, in a case of objection, even if the original obligation indicated in the title of execution is extinguished by repayment or deposit, insofar as the expenses for execution that the obligor is liable to compensate are not reimbursed, the whole executory power of the relevant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105195, May 24, 2012). The respective descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 3 through 8 are the purport of the entire pleadings.