1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap29861.

2...

Basic Facts

According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap29861 (hereinafter “instant enforcement title”), the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) with the Seoul Central District Court C regarding the real estate stated in the attached list, and the said court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction.

The Plaintiff deposited the Defendant as a principal deposit on June 21, 2019, Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2018Na2031468, the appellate court of the instant case, with the total amount of principal and interest of the judgment KRW 29,072,066, in accordance with the judgment of the instant case, including the damages, etc.

The defendant appealed against the above appellate judgment to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court (No. 2019Da242915) dismissed the defendant's appeal on October 17, 2019, which became final and conclusive by the second instance judgment.

On November 21, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the total sum of KRW 1,064,626, and KRW 3727,000 paid by the Defendant for the auction execution of the instant compulsory auction to the Seoul East District Court.

On December 24, 2019, the defendant withdrawn the application for compulsory auction of this case, and on December 27, 2019, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was cancelled.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the defendant filed an application for compulsory auction based on the title of execution of this case, and accordingly, asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

However, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the defendant's application for compulsory auction, the execution title of this case is not extinguished, so there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since claims of this case relating to the executive titles of this case were all extinguished by each of the above repayment deposits, the executive titles of this case are executive titles.