1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment as to the assertion added by this court pursuant to the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 42

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant’s investment amount was KRW 375,00,000, not KRW 225,000,000, the Defendant’s dividend income should be reduced to KRW 89,200,000. The Defendant received KRW 17,500,000 per month for the reason that he provided a direct labor for seven months from December 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 2,50,500 per month for the reason that he provided a direct labor for seven months from June 30, 2014. This is false and thus, it should be reduced from the Defendant’s claim amount.

However, in a lawsuit of objection seeking exclusion of compulsory execution based on final and conclusive judgment, the grounds for objection should arise after the closing of argument (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff all constitute grounds that occurred before the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit, namely, before the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be a legitimate ground for objection.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of attorney fees of KRW 6,00,000 paid by the plaintiff among the 12,000,000,000 paid by the plaintiff in the lawsuit for the settlement of accounts claim of Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016dan10483 and the defendant's most recent investment amount of KRW 150,00,000 shall be reduced from the defendant's claim amount because the plaintiff paid the defendant's fees of KRW 11,00,000,000 on behalf of the defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid the attorney fees of the defendant equivalent to the above amount in the lawsuit above, and the defendant did not appoint the attorney. In full view of the purport of the argument stated in the evidence No. 7, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's attorney only represented the plaintiff and the defendant did not appoint the attorney.