On March 30, 2015, the Seoul Eastern District Court against the defendant's plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kacal656 decided to determine litigation costs, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kacal66 was changed by the Seoul High Court 2015Ra726 decision based on the Plaintiff’s subsequent immediate appeal, compulsory execution based on the first instance court 2014Kacal656 ought to be denied.

B. A modified judgment in an appellate court is identical to a judgment revoking a part of the judgment of the court of first instance by citing an appeal with respect to the part on which the appeal is well-grounded, and the part on which the appeal is not well-grounded. However, it is in accordance with a convenient request to avoid complicated contents of the main text and to facilitate easy understanding of the contents of the main text, and thus, the effect of the judgment of the court of first instance by the modified judgment is limited to the part on which the appeal is well-grounded (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35953, Aug. 18, 1992) as in the case of a partial revocation judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35953, Aug. 18, 1992). As such, the procedure of the appellate court under the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the litigation of the appellate court

In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court's decision is still effective with respect to the portion of KRW 11,200,000,000 among the first instance court's decision, where the appeal has been invalidated by the decision for modification of the appellate court's decision in the instant case.

3. The plaintiff's assertion of set-off is subject to the Seoul Eastern District Court's decision to determine the amount of enforcement cost C, and the execution cost of KRW 1,607,190 against the defendant is repaid. Thus, the plaintiff's automatic claim is against the defendant.