A. After receiving a successful bid of the Seo-gu Incheon District Court No. 7 Dong-dong Underground1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant applied for an order of real estate delivery against the Plaintiff to the Incheon District Court F. On April 4, 2008, the Incheon District Court accepted the Defendant’s application and ordered the Plaintiff to deliver the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant order”).

B. On August 6, 2008, the Defendant completed the delivery execution (case number: 2008No. 3875, hereinafter “instant delivery execution”) of the instant real estate in accordance with the instant order for delivery, and in the process, the Defendant entered into a deposit contract with G on the movable property owned by the Plaintiff, which was owned by the Plaintiff, with the monthly storage charge of KRW 400,000.

C. In the India Execution case of this case, the Defendant filed an application with the Incheon District Court C for the determination of the amount of execution expenses to be repaid to the Defendant. On April 7, 2014, Incheon District Court rendered a decision that the enforcement expenses to be repaid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff were KRW 17,653,110 (hereinafter “decision on the determination of execution expenses of this case”), and the details thereof are as indicated in the separate execution expenses statement.

C. The plaintiff

An immediate appeal was filed against the final decision on the enforcement cost stated in the Paragraph, but was dismissed (Seoul District Court Order 2014Ra445 dated March 31, 2015). The final decision on the enforcement cost of this case was finalized around that time.

(hereinafter referred to in the procedure related to the determination of the amount of the execution cost of the instant case, hereinafter referred to as “the determination procedure of the amount of the execution cost of the instant case”). [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the proof number in the case of a tentative number), the obvious fact in this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is the principal of the contract and G and monthly storage fees directly as the principal of the contract.