1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was an owner of a 331.2 square meters in a raw drug production facility on the ground of reinforced concrete 1,917 square meters prior to B in leisure water, and a cement brick sloping roof 1,60 square meters in a single-story office (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned building”). The Defendant is an owner of the 1,917 square meters prior to B in leisure water in a building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking land usage fees as the Hancheon District Court 2009Gaga14841, which decided on March 17, 2010, the Plaintiff paid 9 million won as land usage fees to the Defendant in three installments, and the adjustment was concluded to remove the Plaintiff’s building until December 31, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). C.

Since then, the defendant made an application for compulsory auction against the building owned by the plaintiff to this court C with the title of execution (amounting to nine million won) of the instant conciliation protocol, and this court accepted the plaintiff's application on December 23, 2014 and rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction.

Plaintiff

On August 7, 2015, a building owned was sold to a third party in the above compulsory auction procedure, and the above compulsory auction procedure was final to distribute the claim amount to the defendant on September 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Facts which are obvious to this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit first.

After a creditor obtains the satisfaction of a right as a result of the whole termination of a compulsory execution based on an executive title, there is no benefit to seek non-permission of such compulsory execution by a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim.

That is, (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489, Apr. 25, 1997). Title, which is the subject of an objection of this case, is the instant protocol of mediation, and the Defendant’s compulsory auction against the building owned by the Plaintiff according to the instant protocol of mediation.