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

A. On November 28, 2014, the first instance judgment that held that “the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff in this case) shall pay 23,637,413 won to the Plaintiff (referring to the Defendant in this case) and 5% per annum from April 1, 2012 to November 28, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” which stated that “the Defendant shall pay 23,637,413 won per annum to the Plaintiff (referring to the Defendant in this case).”

B. On June 2, 2015, upon the declaration of provisional execution of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant acquired a provisional seizure on KRW 24,586,36 of the Plaintiff’s deposit deposit money (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) from among the Plaintiff’s deposit money, and the Defendant paid KRW 24,586,336 of the deposit money during the distribution procedure commenced by the third obligor in the execution deposit of KRW 24,586,36 out of the deposit money.

C. On January 14, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na70206, the appellate court of the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da151957, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na70206, and the Decision 2015Na37589 (Counterclaim), dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against the principal lawsuit and dismissed the Plaintiff’s counterclaim for confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation. The Supreme Court Decision 2016Da9520 (principal lawsuit), the appellate court of the above case, was sentenced to the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid the deposit under doubt as to whether the defendant's monetary claim against the plaintiff exists because the appellate court in the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan151957 case continues to exist, and the plaintiff paid the deposit before the seizure and collection order of the claim of this case was served on the plaintiff. This is the substantive law and the collection order.