1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2017 Ghana40 Decided July 17, 2018 is enforced.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2018, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for management expenses and received a favorable judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 28,968,160 won and 26,132,010 won with 15% interest per annum from February 13, 2018 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "prior judgment"), and the above judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant.

8.7. Finality was established.

B. Upon the Defendant’s application, the Plaintiff’s auction procedure (Seoul Western District Court C) started on August 9, 2018, and on October 15 of the same year, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 26,132,010, which is the same as the original amount of the judgment, to the Defendant’s deposit account.

C. On March 9, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,456,985 to the Defendant’s deposit account (i.e., KRW 4,736,985, KRW 720,000), and transferred the cost of auction execution (i.e., KRW 1,922,460, registration and license tax of KRW 74,542, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 542, KRW 500, KRW 500).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: The Plaintiff’s assertion is that compulsory execution based on the preceding judgment is not permissible, since the Plaintiff fully repaid the debt that became final and conclusive by the preceding judgment (hereinafter “instant debt”).

B. Defendant’s assertion: The amount repaid by the Plaintiff ought to be considered to have been preferentially appropriated for the repayment of obligations other than the instant obligation.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine whether there exists an obligation to be appropriated prior to the instant obligation.

Further to the whole purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 9, 10 and 27-12, the defendant received a prior payment decision (this court D) against the plaintiff as to KRW 26,25,295 of the costs of alternative performance of the plaintiff's duty of restoration according to the decision of recommending settlement that became final and conclusive in the lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment (this court 2016Gadan239041), and ② the defendant against the plaintiff on April 24, 2019.