1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, paragraph 2 of this Article shall be amended as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court in the first instance court, upon the collection of the Defendant’s collection report and the completion of compulsory execution, and the part of KRW 151,143,491, and the part of KRW 309,69,690, which the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant in accordance with a final and conclusive judgment. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the claim seeking non-performance of compulsory execution on the part of the termination of compulsory execution, and accepted the claim seeking non-performance of compulsory execution on the part of the part

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the part of the claim accepted by the plaintiff, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the above cited claim.

2. Grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are stated in this part of the judgment of the first instance.

(1) The Seoul Western District Court 2014Tari 12016, added "(hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of the case") to "the seizure and collection order of the case" in paragraph (3).

(D) On the following grounds, the Defendant spent KRW 1,00 for issuing the execution clause and the certificate of delivery for the purpose of applying for a collection order, KRW 4,000, KRW 35,50 for the issuance of the execution clause and the certificate of delivery for the purpose of applying for a collection order, and KRW 35,50 for the delivery fee (=payment KRW 42,60, KRW 7,000, KRW 7,000). The Defendant delegated the application for a collection order for the instant claim seizure and collection to the law firm or plane, as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, cited it as is in accordance with the latter part of

3. Determination

A. (1) On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the principal and damages for delay after deducting KRW 151,143,491 from the compulsory execution under the above judgment’s obligation to the Defendant on June 14, 2016, and KRW 309,690, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution under this part is reasonable, since the obligation under the above judgment has ceased to exist.

(2) Determination of the defendant's assertion (A) The defendant is indicated in the executive authority.