2. The defendant.

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act;

3. We examine whether the part of the lawsuit in this case which was partially dismissed is legitimate as to the claim for restoration cost of KRW 2,000,000,000.

The execution expenses shall be separately executed by applying for a final decision on the amount of execution expenses to the execution court and applying for a final decision on the amount of execution expenses as executive title. It is unlawful to seek payment of money equivalent to the execution expenses to the debtor as a separate lawsuit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 96Da8, Aug. 21, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 2001Da26873, 26880, Jul. 27, 2001). The above cost for the Plaintiff’s claim for payment corresponds to execution cost and thus, is not allowed to seek a separate lawsuit, not an application for final determination of execution cost amount. Even if the cause for the claim is deemed to constitute tort or unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful.

4. Some of the rejection parts seek payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date of completion of delivery of the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 2(c) and seek payment of damages for delay by the agreed rate. However, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment constitutes a future performance lawsuit where the present due date does not arrive, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay in this part is dismissed.