1. The Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2015 on the construction cost case No. 2015Gau11005, Namyang-si, the Namyang-si Court of the Republic of Korea.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the construction cost, and the conciliation was concluded on September 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

1. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant until October 2, 2015, and if delay, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 3, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

2. The defendant shall waive the remaining claims.

3. Litigation and conciliation costs shall be borne by each person;

B. As the Plaintiff did not repay the amount set forth in the instant conciliation until the above payment date, the Defendant issued compulsory execution (a claim attachment and collection order) pursuant to the instant conciliation protocol.

C. On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the principal amount of KRW 5,035,519 (=the principal amount of KRW 5,000,000 and delay damages thereon).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant conciliation protocol should be denied, since all of the amounts stipulated in the instant conciliation protocol have been repaid.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the compulsory execution cost of KRW 500,000 (50,000 for cancellation cost of claim attachment and collection costs of KRW 450,000) should be paid additionally.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of the receipt submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 450,00 as compulsory execution expenses based on the instant conciliation protocol is acknowledged. Since the Plaintiff did not pay the above expenses, the Plaintiff cannot seek to exclude the executory power of the instant conciliation protocol as to the above part of compulsory execution expenses.

On the other hand, 50,00 won of the cancellation cost alleged by the defendant is the compulsory execution cost based on the instant conciliation protocol.