beta
Text
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. (1) On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of investment amount (No. 2013dadan37289) on October 23, 2013, which was based on the facts of the claim (1). However, the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive upon the judgment against the Plaintiff, and the amount of the lawsuit cost to be borne by the Plaintiff was determined as KRW 7,258,750 (No. 2014Kadan402, supra). (2) In order to revoke the provisional attachment decision made at the time of the above lawsuit, the Defendant filed an application for the revocation of provisional attachment (No. 2014Kadan5681, this Court), with the Plaintiff on October 14, 2014. The amount of the lawsuit cost of the provisional attachment revocation case to be borne by the Plaintiff was determined as KRW 1,890,200 (No. 2015Kadan233333).
3) On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal (this Court No. 2015Ra195) against the decision to revoke the provisional seizure, but lost. Accordingly, the amount of litigation cost to be borne by the Plaintiff was determined as KRW 1,821,650 (this Court No. 2015Kao300). (4) The Plaintiff, who did not pay each of the above litigation cost, was ordered to commence the compulsory auction of real estate on September 21, 2015, with the decision No. 2014Kao-402 as executive title, with the decision No. 20141, May 21, 2015 as Suwon District Court No. 2014Kao-233, 2015Kao-300 as executive title, and was forced to commence the auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2016.
5) On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,970,60 ( KRW 1,890,200, KRW 1,821,650, totaling each of the above litigation costs ( KRW 7,258,750, KRW 1,890, KRW 200, KRW 1,821,650) with the Defendant as the principal deposit, and the Defendant reserved and received an objection. 6) On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff sought the denial of compulsory execution based on the above executive titles on December 13, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff deposited the same as the foregoing.