A. On June 24, 2018, Plaintiff A leased D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant on June 24, 2018, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the period of July 21, 2018 to July 20, 2020.

B. On January 28, 2019, the Defendant received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs on the entire judgment ordering the Plaintiffs to “the delivery of the instant house and the payment of money in proportion to KRW 150,000 per month from January 21, 2019 to January 450, 200,” and the above judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) became final and conclusive on August 6, 2019 by the same court on July 10, 2019.

C. On August 28, 2019, the Defendant: (a) made the instant judgment as an executive title; (b) executed a seizure of the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff F with the Jeonju District Court F; and (c) completed a delivery of the instant housing on September 10, 2019; and (d) disbursed KRW 445,327 in total as the compulsory execution cost.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, upon receipt of the instant housing on September 10, 2019, did not exceed KRW 3,615,00 (=150,00 won [7 x 21/30] of the quoted amount according to the instant judgment and KRW 445,327 of the compulsory execution expenses, even if the Defendant’s transfer of the instant housing to the lessee on September 10, 2019, does not exceed KRW 4,957,490 of the lease deposit to be returned to the lessee. Therefore, compulsory execution with the enforcement title is no longer permissible.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the executory power is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

The defendant's conclusion is affected by the circumstance that the defendant holds additional claims, such as unpaid management expenses, taxes and public charges, and various expenses under the above lease agreement with the plaintiffs.