The case shall be transferred to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

However, a lawsuit of objection against a claim against a final and conclusive provisional execution order may be brought only on the ground that it occurred after the delivery of a provisional execution order pursuant to Article 521(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the defendant's act of executing a compulsory execution under this case's above payment order constitutes a tort, since the claim against the money in custody, which was finalized by the above payment order, was not a deposit in real reality, and was an agreement exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act for the borrowed money, is not a ground for the above provisional execution order's delivery. In addition, the court below's decision does not judge that the interest agreement exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act is valid, and in real reality, the money in custody is a claim with an agreement exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act in the Interest Limitation Act, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's act of conducting a compulsory execution under this case's payment order under this case's above is a tort, or that the above final and conclusive payment order becomes null and void.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's assertion that he deposited 8,620 won in total over two occasions with respect to the claim indicated in the title of debt. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to this point, "The fact that the plaintiff deposited 8,620 won as a statutory interest after the provisional execution of this case became final and conclusive, is merely a partial repayment of 23,00 won (agreement interest) which is the name of debt already finalized, and the title of debt is completely extinguished."

However, even if the claim indicated in the name of debt is not completely extinguished, if a part of the claim is extinguished by repayment, then there is no reason to permit compulsory execution by maintaining the executory power of the name of debt. Thus, the court below should examine the legitimacy of the deposit for repayment in question, and if legitimate, the execution of 8,620 won out of the name of debt shall not be permitted. However, the court below should not be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles that rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to this point, and the arguments are well-grounded.

Therefore, according to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu