As to the grounds of appeal of right:

According to the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases") that allows a right appeal to be filed only on the ground that there is a ground falling under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since the case of a party member (Law No. 4294 Residents and 180, May 26, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Da3009, May 26, 1981) is not appropriate in this case, the interpretation of the law of the court below is inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedents, and since the remaining arguments cited by the defendant on the ground that they are regarded as a right do not fall under any of the provisions of Article 11(1) of the above Act

As to the ground of appeal for permit:

The expenses necessary for compulsory execution under Article 513(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be borne by the debtor and reimbursed by the execution. Such execution expenses shall be based on the name of the debtor, which is the basis of the execution without any separate title, and may be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the relevant compulsory execution procedure. Therefore, in a case of objection to a claim, even if the original obligation indicated in the name of the debtor is extinguished by repayment or deposit, the expenses for execution that the debtor is liable to compensate are not repaid, it shall not be deemed that the whole executory power of the relevant person cannot be claimed unless the expenses are reimbursed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff paid the costs of lawsuit and deposited the damages for delay, which are the title holder of debt in this case, and rejected the defendant's defense that the above execution costs are not effective as the auction fees and other execution costs are not included in the above payment deposit, on the ground that the above execution costs cannot be deemed as the debt included in the above decision of confirmation of litigation costs, which is the title holder of debt that the plaintiff sought exclusion of enforcement power, and accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking exclusion of enforcement power of the above decision of confirmation of litigation costs.

However, as cited by the court below, the execution cost is not itself a debt included in the final decision of litigation cost, which is the title of debt of this case, but if there is an execution cost that the plaintiff should reimburse, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff can not seek the exclusion of the execution power of the whole title of debt without paying it up to this point.

Therefore, the court below should further examine whether there is the cost of execution to be compensated by the plaintiff. The court below's failure to reach this point should be deemed to have caused a serious deliberation by misunderstanding the legal principles of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, which affected the judgment, and therefore, it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases.

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal for permission, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)