The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Kama1093's decision to determine the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with Seoul Southern District Court for the determination of litigation costs with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Kaba10933, and on May 11, 2017, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Kahap102471, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2021903 decided that the Plaintiff’s amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the Defendant was KRW 9,84,480, which became final and conclusive on June 6, 2017.

B. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to Seoul Southern District Court C on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff on July 20, 2017. At the above auction procedure, KRW 4,500 of revenue stamps, KRW 3,00 of registration license tax, KRW 19,680 of registration license tax, KRW 19,680 of service fees, KRW 19,759 of service fees, KRW 83,260 of current status survey expenses, KRW 1,271,40 of appraisal fees, and KRW 1,201,59 of appraisal fees.

C. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for the determination of litigation costs with the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2016Kama10846, and on May 16, 2017, the Seoul Southern District Court 2014KaMa141, and the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Na227861, decided that the Defendant’s reimbursement to the Plaintiff is KRW 14,432,380, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Costs necessary for the judgment of compulsory execution shall be borne by the debtor and the reimbursement shall be made preferentially by the execution. Therefore, such execution costs may be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the pertinent compulsory execution procedure, based on the pertinent name of the debtor, which is the basis for the execution without any separate title of the debt. Accordingly, the original obligation indicated in the name of the debtor was extinguished by the deposit for repayment

The exclusion of the whole executory power of the title of debt shall not be claimed unless the expenses for execution are reimbursed.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da41620 delivered on April 10, 1992). Also, the amount of the litigation cost, the claim, and the auction procedure.