1. The Defendant’s claim for loans against the Plaintiff by the Gwangju District Court Naju District Court Decision 2016Da711 Decided October 28, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 28, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with the Gwangju District Court 2016Gau711 (hereinafter “instant judgment”). On April 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 8,700,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from April 20, 2016 to October 28, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, filed an appeal with the Gwangju District Court 2016Na9489, but was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on June 23, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Based on the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on real estate with respect to the share of 1/2 in C, 693 square meters in P, 5256 square meters in D forest land, and 496 square meters in E, which is owned by the Plaintiff. On February 28, 2018, the compulsory auction on the said real estate was commenced with the Gwangju District Court F.

On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,803,072 ( principal KRW 8,700,000,000 for delay damages of KRW 2,023,642 for delay damages of KRW 79,430) with the Defendant as the principal of deposit in the Gwangju District Court in 2018, the sum of the judgment amount under the instant judgment and the cost of executing the auction cases.

On March 21, 2018, the Defendant reserved an objection and received the deposit money.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, entry of Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the plaintiff deposited his debt in full pursuant to the judgment of this case and the plaintiff's debt to the defendant became extinct, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be permitted.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable, since the defendant still remains a debt for litigation costs under the judgment of this case.

However, the judgment of the court costs is limited to the determination of the existence of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit and to order the payment thereof.