1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On February 19, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On the premise that the fee to be returned to the Defendant on the date of retirement of the Plaintiff is KRW 38,421,932, unlike the principal debt according to the subject judgment, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should deduct KRW 20 million from the above money that the Defendant received from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

However, in this case where the plaintiff seeks to refuse compulsory execution based on the judgment of the court in which res judicata has occurred, the principal and interest obligation (principal principal 34,695,896 won and damages for delay) which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court in which res judicata has taken place cannot be contested for the reasons before the conclusion of arguments in the court of fact-finding

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant received insurance money of KRW 20 million from C around March 2010, which was prior to the filing of the judgment, and appropriated part of the fees to be returned by the plaintiff until then.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the circumstance that the Plaintiff received the amount of fees to be returned to the Defendant on the date of retirement or KRW 20 million as above is merely a dispute over the subject judgment on the grounds prior to the closing of argument at the fact-finding court of the subject judgment, and thus, cannot be viewed as the ground for objection in this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Whether damages for delay under the subject decision is exempted, the Plaintiff paid 5 million won out of the principal debt under the subject decision on March 2014, which was after the judgment became final and conclusive, and paid 29,695,896 won in installments for 30 months, and the remainder of 29,695,896 won is exempted from damages for delay, and the Plaintiff paid 5 million won in five times each by one million won.