A. On July 23, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of the lease deposit (Seoul District Court Decision 2019Da7777), and rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 130 million to the Defendant” on July 23, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 2019.

B. According to the instant judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction for real estate owned by the Plaintiff to Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch C, and received a ruling to commence the auction on August 28, 2019.

C. In the application for compulsory auction of the above real estate, the Defendant spent KRW 2,065,80 for the auction deposit amount to KRW 771,160 (whichever is used until now), KRW 4,950 for stamp, KRW 233,00 for delivery fees, KRW 312,00 for registration license tax, KRW 3,000 for application fee, KRW 3,000 for registration fee, and KRW 410,70 for certified judicial scrivener.

On December 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 130,731,860 to the Defendant under the pretext of the sum of KRW 130,00,000,000 and KRW 731,860,00,00,000,00 for the instant judgment and KRW 2019,80456, which became final and conclusive in Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the parties' assertion asserts that, since the plaintiff fully performs his/her obligation under the judgment of this case, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff should be denied, the defendant asserts that the defendant should be paid approximately KRW 3650,000 in addition to the costs of KRW 3655,00.

B. The costs necessary for the judgment are borne by the obligor and are to be reimbursed preferentially by the enforcement. Such enforcement costs may be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the obligor in the enforcement procedure in question, based on the name of the obligor in question, which is the basis of the enforcement without any separate title of the obligation, and therefore indicated in the name of the obligor.