1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on the payment order No. 2015 No. 2015 No. 115 is denied.

2. This.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-2, and may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.

The defendant shall pay to the defendant 135,00 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from January 22, 2015 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. The defendant shall be the payment order in this case.

B. The instant payment order was served on February 13, 2015 on the Plaintiff, and was finalized on February 28, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 167,860 on March 26, 2015.

C. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant reserved an objection and paid KRW 167,860 to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. If deposit for performance is effective, the obligor’s deposit for payment is required to provide for the full repayment of the obligation and deposit for the full amount of the obligation, and the deposit for part other than the full amount of the obligation does not take effect as to that part. However, if the obligee expresses his/her intent to appropriate the deposit for part of the obligation, and receives it, the deposit shall be appropriated for the partial repayment of the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da83776, Mar. 15, 2012).

B. Principal and interest pursuant to the instant payment order until March 26, 2015 are KRW 138,457 as follows.

(1) 135,00 won 】 [23 days (i.e., from January 22, 2015 to February 13, 2015)] 】0.05 】 0.05 ± 365 ± (2) 135,000 】 [41 days (i.e., February 14, 2015 to March 26, 2015)] 】 0.2 ± 365 ± (3,457 won total of interest of 3,032 won, total of principal and interest of 138,457 won)] 】

C. The Plaintiff deposited 167,860 won in repayment exceeding the principal amount of 138,457 won under the instant payment order. Since the obligation under the instant payment order was fully repaid, it is necessary to deny the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion.