1. The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2018 based on the conciliation protocol (2018Ss. 62) against the Seoul Southern District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Seoul Southern District Court 2018Ms.62, the Plaintiff paid 600,000 won to the Defendant by March 31, 2018, and the conciliation was concluded at the rate of 15% per annum from April 1, 2018 to the date of full payment.

B. On March 9, 2018, the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Gadan228719 Decided March 9, 2018 issued a seizure and collection order (the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Gadan228719) with respect to the claim based on the above protocol of mediation as the title of execution, and with respect to the claim based on the above protocol of mediation, C was issued with the seizure and collection order (the collection order in this case was issued by the Incheon District Court 2018 Taga50252, hereinafter

C. C, based on the instant collection order on March 20, 2018, collected KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff, the third debtor, based on the collection order in this case.

2. According to the above-mentioned facts, since obligations under the above-mentioned conciliation protocol are fully satisfied and extinguished, compulsory execution under the above conciliation protocol cannot be permitted.

[Collection Order] The service of the plaintiff to the third debtor (the plaintiff) takes effect upon delivery, and even if the debtor (the defendant) is dissatisfied with it, the validity does not affect it] 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.