2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. In Suwon District Court C real estate auction, the Plaintiff: (a) woned D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”); and (b) paid in full the sale price on May 12, 2017.

B. At the time of the above auction, the defendant was residing in the apartment of this case.

C. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff joined the Suwon District Court enforcement officer and attempted to deliver the instant apartment, and in the process, the Plaintiff suspended the delivery execution so that the Defendant can reside in the said apartment by June 29, 2017.

On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was handed over the instant apartment from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the part of the claim for the execution cost in the lawsuit in this case spent KRW 1,585,00 as the execution cost in the course of delivery and execution of the apartment in this case and sought payment of the above money against the defendant.

Expenses of execution not reimbursed in the compulsory execution procedure shall be separately applied for a decision to determine the amount of execution expenses to the executing court and executed the said decision as the executive title. It is unlawful that a separate lawsuit is filed against the debtor to seek the amount of money equivalent to the execution expenses.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 96Da8, Aug. 21, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 2001Da26873, 26880, Jul. 27, 2001). Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking the payment is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, since the Plaintiff seeks the payment to the Defendant by a separate lawsuit, not by a final decision on the amount of execution expenses incurred in executing the delivery of the instant apartment.

3. The judgment on the merits is that the plaintiff occupied the apartment of this case without permission from the defendant after acquiring the ownership of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff could not use it or gain profit from it due to the defendant's unauthorized occupation.