1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if both the parties’ allegations

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts used for dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the “indirect compulsory performance doctrine” (No. 8, 17, 9, 4) as stated in Article 4-b shall be applied as follows.

On the other hand, with respect to the obligations of the incidental act, after the execution title has been established in the ordinary adjudication procedure, the indirect compulsory execution order may be made in accordance with Article 261 of the Civil Execution Act, which orders certain compensation at the time of default pursuant to the Article 261 of the Civil Execution Act, by a separate examination

However, if it is always possible to make a decision of indirect compulsory performance with respect to the obligations of an incidental act, as seen above, if the enforcement title should be established first, then the decision of indirect compulsory performance may be made only after the establishment of the enforcement title and the compulsory execution. If the debtor fails to perform the obligations of the incidental act at an interval of time between the establishment of the enforcement title and the compulsory execution, it is likely that the ex post facto remedy such

Therefore, in order to guarantee the effective execution of the judgment ordering the obligation to act in the military unit, even if the enforcement title is established by considering it at the time of the closing of argument in the judgment procedure, it is clear that the debtor has no possibility of arbitrarily discharging the obligation, and the debtor has been given sufficient opportunity to present the propriety of the decision of indirect compulsory performance in the judgment procedure, and the reasonable amount of compensation ordered under