A. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant received a decision on July 20, 2016 that “the amount of litigation to be repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant based on the judgment in the Busan District Court Decision 2014Gauri29861, Busan District Court Decision 2015Na42046, the amount of litigation to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 2,757,417,” and the said decision was finalized on August 2, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant decision”). (b)

On August 9, 2016, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction to this court C on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff based on the original copy of the instant decision, and rendered a decision to commence the auction on the next day.

C. In relation to the above compulsory auction, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 1,564,90 for various costs, such as auction deposit, delivery fee, etc., and the present amount of KRW 1,500,000 for auction deposit and KRW 225,742 remains.

On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,096,817 (2,757,417, and KRW 339,400, which are the costs of lawsuit finalized in the instant decision).

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

2. The expenses required for compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act, which are to be borne by the debtor and to be reimbursed preferentially in the course of such execution. The expenses for such execution are based on the executive titles that form the basis for the execution without any separate executive titles and can be collected together with the claims indicated in the executive titles in the relevant compulsory execution procedures. As such, in a case of objection, even if the original obligations indicated in the executive titles are extinguished by repayment or deposit, the whole executory power of the relevant executive titles cannot be claimed unless the debtor reimburses the expenses for the execution that are to be reimbursed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da105195 Decided May 24, 2012). According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff applied for auction in addition to the amount of the instant decision.