1. As to the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff, the Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) rendered on June 1, 2016, No. 2015Na1132.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with Jeju District Court 2013Gahap3473 and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant on July 23, 2015.

B. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with Jeju District Court C for a compulsory auction of real estate on the Plaintiff’s share (i.e., 1/2) among D large 254m2 and its ground and 63m2 prior to E, Jeju District Court C, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff, and the auction procedure was commenced on the same day.

C. On June 1, 2016, the Jeju High Court rendered a judgment revoking part of the part of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “instant judgment”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 36,664,274 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 18, 2012 to June 1, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 36,64,274 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on June 22, 2016.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff against the Defendant on June 17, 2016, as the Jeju District Court Decision 2016No. 903, the principal amount of the said final and conclusive judgment and damages for delay KRW 36,664,274, and KRW 6,657,547, and KRW b above.

1,292,520 won, total of 44,614,341 won was deposited in repayment.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On October 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn an application case for compulsory auction against the Plaintiff on the Jeju District Court C real estate, which the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff on October 4, 2016; and (b) rescinded its enforcement; (c) accordingly, on October 6, 2016, the registration of the decision on commencing compulsory auction was cancelled; and (d) accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no interest in the lawsuit, and thus,

In the lawsuit of objection as stipulated in Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act, with respect to the claim indicated in the executive title, the debtor shall file a lawsuit of objection.