1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After a final and conclusive judgment of the damage compensation case (such as Seoul High Court 2015Na5905, 2015Na5912 (Counterclaim), which was initiated between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendants”), the Defendants filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a final and conclusive decision of the amount of litigation costs against the Plaintiff and C, and on February 28, 2017, the said court rendered a decision that “the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff and C have to pay to the Defendants is KRW 1,142,242.”

(2016Kadada972, hereinafter “instant decision”). The Plaintiff and C dissatisfied with the instant decision and filed a complaint and reappeal, but all of them were dismissed, and the instant decision became final and conclusive around September 2017.

B. According to the instant decision, the Defendants filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the Seoul Central District Court D, and the said court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on October 12, 2017.

C. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,142,242 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 22385 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) as the principal deposit and filed the instant lawsuit on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff tried to pay the defendants the full amount of the debt according to the decision of this case, but the defendants refused to receive the debt and deposited this case. Thus, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Effectiveness 1 of the deposit of this case) The debtor may be exempted from the obligation even if he deposits the object of payment with the real offer as well as the repayment by the deposit (Article 487 of the Civil Act does not become effective in a case where the deposit itself is null and void due to its illegality).

In addition, the deposit for repayment on the ground of the rejection is lawful and effective.