1. The decision made on December 30, 2015 by the Defendant’s Suwon District Court Decision 2015Kao-555 on the Plaintiff’s lawsuit amount.

Basic Facts

As to the costs of lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, this Court Decision 2013Gahap14784, Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na31792, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da90676, the Defendant filed an application for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs with this Court 2015Kada555.

The Defendant was rendered a ruling on December 30, 2015, which determined that the amount of the litigation cost to be repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was KRW 9,915,200 (hereinafter “instant ruling”).

Based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision, the Defendant applied for a collection order, which was issued on January 29, 2016, for the seizure and collection order of claims 10,383,200, the debtor, the third debtor bank, the National Bank, etc., and the amount of claims 10,383,200.

On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 9,915,200 with the Defendant as the principal deposit under this Court No. 2016,1095.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, and obligation based on the decision of this case as to the plaintiff's assertion of the whole purport of the argument of the parties concerned is repaid in full with the above deposit, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case shall be dismissed.

The Defendant’s obligation based on the instant decision remains 468,00 won (=10,383,200 won - 9,915,200 won) even after the said deposit. As such, compulsory execution based on the instant decision shall be denied only for the portion exceeding KRW 468,00,00.

Judgment

The fact that the Plaintiff, on April 4, 2016, deposited an additional deposit of KRW 468,00 by designating the Defendant as the principal deposit in this Court No. 2697, the fact that the Plaintiff paid an additional deposit of KRW 468,00,00, is no dispute between the

Therefore, inasmuch as the obligation based on the decision of this case was fully repaid even by the defendant's argument, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case should be dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.