The appeal filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff at the trial are all dismissed.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to be a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The reasons for this Court to be stated are as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the principal claim, since the Defendant’s claim pursuant to the judgment of this case was extinguished due to the Plaintiff’s repayment deposit on January 12, 2017, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case against the Plaintiff should be rejected.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and the cause of counterclaim

A. On the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the Defendant could not comply with the instant claim before receiving the payment of KRW 354,00,00 in total of the expenses incurred by the Defendant for compulsory execution pursuant to the instant judgment (i.e., the amount of KRW 224,00,000 for the key enforcement fee of KRW 224,00 for the enforcement officer’s custody); and (b) that

B. Determination 1) The expenses incurred in compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the obligor and the reimbursement shall be made preferentially in the execution. Such execution expenses may be collected together with the claims indicated in the enforcement title in the pertinent compulsory execution procedures, based on the relevant enforcement title, which serves as the basis for the execution without any separate enforcement title. As such, in a case of demurrer, even if the original obligation indicated in the enforcement title has ceased to exist by repayment or deposit, the obligor cannot seek an exclusion of the execution title in whole, insofar as the execution expenses that the obligor is liable to reimburse are not repaid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105195, May 24, 2012). However, if the obligor deposits for payment, giving notice of deposit to the obligee is not the valid requirements for the deposit, and thus, the obligation that the depositor did not give notice of deposit is extinguished (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1200, Mar. 9, 1976).