2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

A. A filed an application by a notary public against the defendant and the defendant's husband C for a conciliation on the payment of loans based on the No. 1112 of the debt repayment contract No. 1995, 1995 against the defendant and the defendant's husband C, and this court rendered a decision as of June 22, 2005 in lieu of conciliation that "the defendant and C shall jointly and severally pay to A 50 million won and damages for delay from May 27, 1995," and the above decision was delivered to the defendant and C.

B. C did not raise an objection in lieu of the above conciliation and the above decision became final and conclusive. However, the defendant raised an objection in lieu of the above conciliation and the above conciliation case was implemented as the litigation procedure of the loan case No. 2005da77074 in this court.

(hereinafter referred to as “case subject to review”). (c)

On December 21, 2005, the court rendered a favorable judgment in whole A (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment in retrial"), which states that "the defendant shall pay the defendant the amount of 42 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from May 27, 1995 to May 12, 2005, and 20% per annum from May 13, 2005 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment in retrial", and claims based on the above judgment were referred to as "the bonds in this case"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, A died on January 21, 2014, and jointly succeeded to the property of the deceased, F, G, and H, the wife of the Plaintiff, F, G, and H, but the said F, G, and H renounced the inheritance share of the instant claim.

E. In order to interrupt the interruption of extinctive prescription against the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment of the instant claim with this Court No. 2015 tea104, and the said court issued the payment order on February 23, 2015, but the Defendant raised an objection against the said payment order.