beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on September 27, 2017, based on the order of 2017Kao-242.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under Article 2017Kao-242, and rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff is KRW 1,953,614 that the amount of litigation costs to be repaid to the Defendant was KRW 1,953,614 (hereinafter “instant ruling”).
B. On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,953,614 according to the above decision for the Defendant.
【Ground for recognition: A without dispute, A evidence Nos. 1 and 3
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff paid all the costs of lawsuit 1,953,614 as determined by the decision of this case to the defendant. Thus, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case shall be dismissed.
3. The defendant's assertion and judgment that "the plaintiff's assertion is without merit since he did not receive 1.5 million won for the auction payment, 2.7 million won for the auction payment, 4.54,200 won for a certified judicial scrivener preparing an application for compulsory auction for a compulsory auction for real estate (government district court C)."
First of all, the fee paid to a certified judicial scrivener to prepare an application for compulsory auction shall not be considered an auction cost to be preferentially reimbursed through compulsory execution procedures. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.
Next, on June 7, 2018, since this Court stated the amount actually executed until now out of the auction deposit and delivery charge, and issued an order to make an explanation of the evidential data to the Defendant on June 8, 2018, the Defendant was unilaterally absent on the designated mediation date and the date for pleading without any assertion and proof until now even though it was served on June 8, 2018, there is no assertion and proof as to the portion actually executed until now out of the auction deposit and delivery charge prepaid by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.