1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Decision 2013Kayang-si Court Decision 2013Gau4607.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2013, with respect to the case of damages, etc. filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, etc., the said court rendered a judgment on June 12, 2013 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 1,985,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 8, 2013 to June 12, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

B. After that, according to the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kao66, and thereafter, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the same court C, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the above court assistant on June 9, 2014.

C. Accordingly, on July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,000,000 as the deposited person on the ground that the Defendant was refused to receive the payment, even though the Plaintiff intended to repay the Defendant’s obligation based on the instant judgment, as the District Court Decision 2014Hun-3741, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant as the deposited person.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,00,000 with the Defendant as the principal deposit and deposited KRW 201,00,00,00 according to the judgment of this case, and the obligation based on the judgment of this case has ceased to exist due to repayment. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be denied.

B. After the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the Defendant did not repay the Defendant’s obligation under the above judgment. The Defendant spent KRW 1,000, total service fees of KRW 39,000 ( = 32,500, total service fees of KRW 6,500), registered mail expenses of KRW 2,230, road usage fees of KRW 3,200, and oil expenses of KRW 58,319, respectively, when filing an application for property specification with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013Kao66, Seoul East District Court Decision 2000.