1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant's judgment of Gwangju District Court for the plaintiff is supported by Gwangju District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch 2013Kao-19, and the judicial assistant officer of the above court rendered a decision on April 1, 2013 that “The amount of litigation costs to be repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 3,340,735,” and the decision was finalized.

B. On August 30, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate on the real estate in the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the Gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned as the executive title, and carried out the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

C. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,340,735 with the Defendant as the principal deposit, the Suwon District Court deposited KRW 9676,201, and on March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 887,100 with the Defendant as the principal deposit on March 18, 2015 during the trial.

On the other hand, the execution cost incurred by the defendant according to the compulsory execution of this case is 887,100 won in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff deposited all of the amount of litigation costs determined by the decision of this case, KRW 3,340,735, and KRW 887,100 (the defendant asserted that the execution cost following the execution of this case exceeds KRW 887,100, and KRW 1,391,670, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's assertion that exceeds the above scope of recognition shall not be accepted), and compulsory execution according to the decision of this case shall be rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion.