B. Whether a claim can be made to exclude the entire executory power where the debt indicated in the name of the debtor was extinguished but the executory power is not reimbursed (negative)

C. Whether it constitutes a legitimate ground of appeal to assert that the amount deposited in the court of final appeal was omitted from the expenses for compulsory execution (negative)

B. The costs necessary for compulsory execution shall be borne by the debtor and the reimbursement shall be made preferentially by the execution. Such execution costs may be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the compulsory execution procedure in question, based on the name of the debtor in question, which is the basis of the execution without any separate title of the debt. Therefore, even if the original obligation indicated in the name of the debtor was extinguished by the deposit for repayment, unless the execution costs are reimbursed, the whole executory power of the relevant name of the debt cannot be claimed to exclude.

C. The assertion that the amount deposited in the court of final appeal was omitted from the compulsory execution cost cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff intended to pay the debt amount indicated in the name of the debt of this case to the defendant, but the defendant refused to receive it and deposited the payment. The court below did not err in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and therefore, the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the plaintiff can file a lawsuit of objection of this case on behalf of the non-party who is indicated as the debtor in the name of the debtor in the name of the debtor, the succession of the obligation, and other reasons. However, the creditor of this person can file a lawsuit of objection based on the creditor's subrogation right. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff can file a lawsuit of objection of this case on behalf of the plaintiff because the plaintiff has the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the object of the compulsory execution of this case against the non-party who is indicated as the debtor in the name of the debt of this case. This decision is justified in accordance with such legal principles,

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The costs necessary for compulsory execution shall be borne by the debtor and the reimbursement shall be made preferentially by the execution (Article 513(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Such execution costs may be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the pertinent compulsory execution procedures, based on the relevant title of debt, which is the basis for the execution without any separate title of debt. Therefore, even if the original obligation indicated in the name of the debtor was extinguished by the deposit for repayment, even if the expenses for execution are not reimbursed, the exclusion of the execution of the pertinent title of debt cannot be sought (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Da2356, Sept. 26, 1989).

However, the defendant asserts that the amount of repayment deposited as above has been omitted, such as the theory of lawsuit, which cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da150 delivered on September 11, 1979). The argument is groundless.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)