1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Gaso1695 Decided November 23, 2016 is enforced.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 23, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to claim damages by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016 Ghana1695, and was sentenced by the said court on November 23, 2016 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 376,825 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from November 28, 2015 to September 6, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On February 24, 2017, the Defendant received a collection order for the total amount of KRW 502,747 from the Plaintiff’s deposit under the Cheongju District Court 2017TTTTT1329, which was based on the instant judgment. The Defendant spent KRW 300,000 (including KRW 4,000, delivery fees, and KRW 81,400) to the attorney-at-law in the instant case of the seizure and collection order.

C. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant as the principal in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017No. 1447, with the total sum of 422,150 won (the principal 376,825 won to November 28, 2015 to September 6, 2016, 14,660 won per annum 15% interest per annum from September 7, 2016 to March 23, 2017).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount ordered in the judgment of this case was repaid and the total amount of the debt was extinguished by the deposit, and the plaintiff is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the above judgment.

B. Regarding this, the defendant asserts that since the defendant spent 600,000 won as the litigation cost regarding the judgment of this case, and 300,000 won as the execution cost in the case of the seizure and collection order of the claim based on the judgment of this case, the plaintiff's deposited money should be first appropriated for the above expenses, the obligation according to the judgment of this case remains

3. Determination

(a) In the case of the objection raised, the indication is given to the executive titles;