1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The Seoul Central District Court shall file an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the Seoul Central District Court 2017 Chicago213.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Seoul Western District Court 2012Kabama555, and filed for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Seoul Western District Court 2010Kahap12364, Seoul High Court 201Na7636 decided that the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff is KRW 4,022,276, and the said determination became final and conclusive on June 27, 2013.

B. On December 18, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Seoul Western District Court 2012Kabama556, and received a decision on December 18, 2012 that “The amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is to pay by the Seoul Western District Court 2010Kahap16717, Seoul High Court 201Na72891, the Seoul High Court 201Na72891, the said decision became final and conclusive on September 25, 2013.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision,” in total of the above two costs of lawsuit). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion of the litigation costs shall be borne by each party in accordance with Article 106 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to bear the litigation costs. The decision of this case was made contrary to this, and thus its validity is not valid.

In addition, the defendant seized the plaintiff's property on the basis of the claim according to the decision of this case. In case where the debtor's property is seized on the basis of the claim, the period of extinctive prescription under Article 78 of the Criminal Act is not the period of extinctive prescription. The defendant's above claim expired after the lapse of one or three-year period of extinctive prescription after

Even if the claim under the instant decision exists, the Plaintiff has a claim against the Defendant pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap47331.