A. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the Changwon District Court Msan Branch 2014 tea1677, and the said court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff, C, and D jointly and severally paid KRW 3,355,000 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” and the instant payment order was finalized on November 29, 2014.

B. According to the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”) with the Changwon District Court Msan Branch E on the basis of the instant payment order and rendered a decision of commencement on December 8, 2014.

C. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited 3,621,562 won in accordance with the instant payment order with the Defendant as the principal deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted since all of the obligations under the payment order of this case were repaid, and the defendant asserts that KRW 1,727,710 of the auction expense of this case was not yet 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). In addition, costs of enforcement are spent by creditors for enforcement.