A. On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a quasi-loan loan agreement No. 93, which read “the amount to be repaid KRW 20 million, due date, September 13, 2017, and 20% per annum” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate with the Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court E and the Suwon District Court F, and received a ruling to commence the auction on November 13, 2017 and December 11, 2019, respectively.

C. The Defendant spent KRW 4,493,920 in addition to the amount of KRW 1,201,00 for each auction payment (718,360 for Ansan District Court E and the amount used among them), KRW 1,607,800 for each auction payment (the amount used up to the present time 960,160 won) in the application for compulsory auction of each of the above real estate.

On January 13, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 9,336,986, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 14, 2017 to January 13, 2020, the following day after the due date for payment. The Defendant reserved and received an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that, as the Plaintiff fully repaid the obligation under the instant notarial deed, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

The defendant asserts that an amount equivalent to KRW 4,493,920, which the defendant borne by the defendant, should be paid additionally by the plaintiff.

B. The cost necessary for the judgment is borne by the obligor and is entitled to preferential reimbursement by the enforcement. Therefore, such enforcement cost is the basis for the enforcement without a separate title of debt.