1. The defendant's contribution to the plaintiff of Suwon District Court 2019Kacheon-si Court 2019Gau4457 Deposit refund case against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 with the Suwon District Court 2019Da4457,000, the said court decided on October 18, 2019 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from November 29, 2019 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 10,00,000, and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on December 13, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (b)

The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate as Suwon District Court Loan C with the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation of this case as executive title and received a decision to commence the auction procedure on December 13, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”). C.

On March 11, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000,00 as principal and delayed damages, and expenses for auction execution in accordance with the instant performance recommendation decision by designating the Defendant as the principal deposit, and deposited KRW 10,841,918.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that since the decision-making of this case's defense was withdrawn from a compulsory auction application of this case, the lawsuit of objection of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit.

A lawsuit of demurrer may be brought regardless of whether the enforcement title exists with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised, so long as the enforcement title continues to exist with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised, and it cannot be readily concluded that the enforcement force of the instant decision of performance recommendation expires solely on the ground that the Plaintiff repaid the debt and the Defendant withdraws the application for compulsory execution.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the debt under the decision of execution recommendation of this case was extinguished by the Plaintiff’s full repayment deposit of debt, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.