1. The Defendant’s protocol for the conciliation of the instant case, including the purchase price, from the Cheongju District Court 2015Na251, against the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition (i) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant from the appellate court (No. 2015Na251) to September 22, 2015 by filing a lawsuit, including the purchase-price, for the purchase-price, etc. (No. 2014da12386), until October 31, 2015, and if the payment is delayed by the due date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount to the Defendant plus damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the date following the due date to the date of full payment.

The mediation of the contents was made.

B. On August 11, 2016, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction with the instant protocol of mediation with executory power and received a decision to commence compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on August 11, 2016.

On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2,357,261 as the principal and interest of the Defendant as the principal and interest pursuant to the instant conciliation protocol by designating the Defendant as the principal and interest.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of principal and interest under the instant conciliation protocol, the obligation under the instant conciliation protocol was extinguished.

However, the expenses necessary for compulsory execution are borne by the debtor and are preferentially reimbursed by the execution. Such execution expenses are based on the name of the debtor, which is the basis for the execution, and can be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the execution procedure. Accordingly, the original obligation indicated in the name of the debtor was extinguished due to its repayment.

The exclusion of the whole executory power of the title of debt shall not be claimed unless the expenses for execution are reimbursed.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including various numbers) of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da41620, Apr. 10, 1992), the Defendant’s expenses incurred for the enforcement of this case can be recognized as constituting 354,000.