(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). On March 25, 2015, the Defendant had conducted the auction procedure by obtaining a decision to commence a compulsory auction of real estate from Incheon District Court C with respect to an apartment owned by the Plaintiff.

On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) designated the Defendant as the principal and interest of the instant judgment that occurred until that time; (b) deposited KRW 59,306,750 with the principal and interest of the instant judgment; (c) deposited KRW 23,810 with the additional amount among the principal and interest of the judgment rendered on April 15, 2016 in accordance with the instant court order; and (d) on June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,648,360 with the litigation cost calculated in the instant court order.

The above does not dispute between the original defendant.

Meanwhile, expenses incurred in compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the debtor and reimbursed preferentially in the course of the execution. Such expenses are based on the pertinent executive title, which serves as the basis for the execution without any separate executive title, and may be collected together with the claims indicated in the executive title in the relevant compulsory execution procedure. Thus, even in a case of objection, even if the original debt indicated in the executive title is extinguished by repayment or deposit, insofar as the expenses for the execution that the debtor is liable to reimburse are not reimbursed, the whole executory power of the relevant executive title shall not be claimed for

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Da2356, 89Meu121, Sept. 26, 1989; 201Da105195, May 24, 2012). The remainder, excluding the amount deposited out of the Defendant’s execution claim amount according to the executive title of the instant judgment, according to the foregoing legal doctrine.