1. The Defendant’s decision on the amount of litigation cost determined by the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Kao-18, 2014Kao-80 against the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the above court deposited KRW 15,818,830 of the costs of lawsuit according to each of the above decisions with the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) and the defendant deposited KRW 15,818,830 of the total amount of each of the above costs of lawsuit to be repaid to the defendant, and the fact that each of the above decisions became final, the total amount of each of the costs of lawsuit was 15,818,830 of the costs of lawsuit, and the plaintiff deposited KRW 15,818,830 of the costs of lawsuit according to each of the above decisions under the title No. 142, Mar.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant's right to claim the determination of the amount of each of the above litigation costs against the plaintiff has ceased to exist due to the plaintiff's above payment deposit, the execution power of each of the above decisions

[Attachment, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of pleadings with the Defendant liable to pay damages amounting to KRW 624,400,000 to the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff’s claim was asserted as offset against the damage claim, as long as the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted in entirety pursuant to the above repayment deposit alleged by the Plaintiff, the offset claim need not be further determined. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff’s claim was additionally asserted, the Plaintiff did not comply with an application for change of the purport of the claim and payment procedure for additional stamp payment.

(2) On February 2, 200, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit is entitled to the payment of money on the ground that the reimbursement deposit was made by filing a claim objection, and the claim seeking monetary payment is not identical to the original claim, and thus, it is not permissible to allow it. Thus, the Defendant’s claim regarding the Defendant’s assertion is not determined in the instant lawsuit, even if the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against the Defendant.