청구이의
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on the basis of the Decision on the Amount of litigation costs determined by the Gwangju District Court 2016Kao670.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the same court rendered a decision on January 19, 2017 that the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of KRW 2016Da13241 to the Defendant, which the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant on January 19, 2017, determined that the amount of litigation costs for the instant case was KRW 5,336,740, and that the said decision became final and conclusive around that time, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,336,740 for the Defendant on January 31, 2017 by the Gwangju District Court No. 522 for the Defendant on January 31, 2017.
According to the above facts, since the defendant's claim based on the decision to determine the amount of litigation costs against the plaintiff has ceased to exist due to the plaintiff's above repayment deposit, the power of the decision should be excluded.
2. On February 16, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure of movable properties against the apartment owned by the Plaintiff on or around February 16, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s seizure of corporeal movables was conducted on or around February 23, 2017, and the Plaintiff withdrawn the seizure of corporeal movables on or around March 27, 2017 after receiving the preservation of the seizure cost of corporeal movables from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant claim is groundless.
A lawsuit of objection is an action to exclude the executive force of the effective executive title.
Therefore, even if the defendant withdrawn the compulsory execution against the plaintiff's corporeal movables, the executory power of the Gwangju District Court 2016Kama670 decision is valid, and therefore, the necessity to exclude the executory power remains.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.