1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as Seoul Central District Court 2010TTT 201, issued a payment order ordering the Defendant to pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 4,314,246 against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant received the claim for the repayment and the collection order against KRW 4,314,246 among the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff located in Seoul Sungsung District Court 2010TT 6251 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized on December 30, 2010.

B. Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant received the seizure and collection order as to the deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s National Bank (hereinafter “National Bank”) against the Plaintiff’s National Bank (hereinafter “National Bank”) by Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT9827. On April 22, 2015, the Defendant collected the total amount of the claim from the National Bank based on the above collection order.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment ex officio is that there is no benefit to seek non-permission of compulsory execution by filing a lawsuit of demurrer after the creditor obtains satisfaction as a whole due to the completion of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489, Apr. 25, 1997). According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case has already been completed and the defendant, the creditor, obtained the satisfaction of his/her right, and thus there is no benefit to seek non-permission of compulsory execution by filing a lawsuit of objection.

3. The instant lawsuit is dismissed.