1. Defendant E’s KRW 5,428,311 as well as 5% per annum from June 12, 2019 to June 11, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application against Defendant B for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 110 million from June 3, 2013 to October 1, 2013. Accordingly, Defendant B raised an objection against the Plaintiff and B, which led to the loans of KRW 2016 money142.

B. In this context, on June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a conciliation agreement with the effect that “Defendant B shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and shall pay KRW 30,000,000 each time until July 31, 2016 in two equal installments, and KRW 80,000,000 until December 31, 2016. If the payment of the above amount is delayed, the Plaintiff shall lose the benefit of time, and the remainder shall be paid to the Plaintiff at once, but the remainder shall be paid by adding the damages for delay at a rate of 15% per annum from the day after the date of loss of the benefit of time to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant conciliation agreement”).

C. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the execution of seizure of movable property with the Daejeon District Court Written Execution Officer for the instant protocol of mediation, and the said enforcement officer, on May 23, 2018, carried out compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) that seizes poppy straws (hereinafter “instant poppy”).

Defendant D, E, F, and G filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff as the Daejeon District Court Branch Branching 2018Gadan1325 (hereinafter “third party’s lawsuit”). Defendant E filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the same court under the same court’s 2018Kadan13, and the said court rendered a decision of the suspension of compulsory execution (hereinafter “decision of the suspension of compulsory execution”) with the content that compulsory execution against the instant straws by the time the said third party’s lawsuit was rendered, upon accepting the said application on June 21, 2018.

E. In light of various circumstances, Defendant D, E, F, and G, in view of the fact that the instant third party’s lawsuit was “in the instant third party’s lawsuit,” the said court held that Defendant D, E, F, and G.