1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Kadan10232.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of lease deposit of KRW 36,750,000 as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Da110232, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff. On August 26, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment against the Defendant to pay KRW 36,750,000 to the Defendant, who paid KRW 36,750,00 to the Plaintiff at the same time as “the Plaintiff,” at the same time, was delivered from the Defendant, D apartment Nos. 212, 703, and 59.79 square meters (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

(hereinafter referred to as “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

On November 2, 2015, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the apartment of this case to Gwangju District Court Net-Support E with the final judgment of this case as executive title.

C. Accordingly, on February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 37,750,000, totaling KRW 36,750,000 of the final and conclusive judgment amount of the instant case, and KRW 1,00,000 of the enforcement cost, as the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 694 in 2016, with the Defendant as the depositee, and entered “the name map of the instant apartment” in the column for consideration.

(hereinafter referred to as the "deposit for Payment in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the payment in this case', each entry in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3 (including partial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that this case’s final and conclusive judgment has become void due to the instant repayment deposit on the ground that the obligation based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case has been fully extinguished.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the payment deposit of this case was not effective since the payment deposit of this case was a condition for the first performance of the surrender.

B. In making a deposit for the repayment of the lease deposit in the simultaneous performance relationship with the name of one building and the name of one building, if the “written confirmation that the building was ordered” was attached to a counter-performance condition, the said deposit for repayment shall be deemed to have been subject to the prior performance of the name of the intention. Therefore, it shall be deemed to have no validity of the repayment.