1. It is based on the judgment in the Suwon District Court case No. 2014Kadan16630 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and there is no counter-proof.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the return of lease deposit with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch of 2014Kadan16630, and the above court rendered a judgment on October 8, 2014 that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case),” and the judgment became final and conclusive.

(hereinafter “instant debt name”). B.

Based on the title of debt in this case, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the plaintiff's real estate, a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's claim, and received the full repayment of KRW 50,000 as dividends and collection money in the auction procedure.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the obligation based on the name of debt of this case was fully repaid.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the name of debt in this case with executory power of the defendant against the plaintiff should be denied.

B. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the name of debt of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, but since the defendant started compulsory execution due to the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation, and the repayment was made in full thereafter, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.