1. The Defendant’s order for payment in the Jeju District Court Decision 2017Da263 was issued against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2017, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 10,00,000 with the Seopo-si District Court 2017j263, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, the Jeju District Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and on August 31, 2017, the Defendant issued a payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff would pay 10,000,000 to the Defendant, and 5% per annum from April 24, 2017 to the date of delivery of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized on August 26, 2015 because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

B. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate upon the instant payment order. On March 7, 2018, the Jeju District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction with a claim amounting to KRW 15% per annum for KRW 2,180,344 and KRW 1,200,000 from February 15, 2018 to the date of full payment. The Defendant paid KRW 2,246,230 as expenses for execution related to the said compulsory auction procedure.

C. On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2,180,344 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties has paid KRW 2,180,344, which is the full amount of debt due to the payment order issued by the Jeju District Court Decision 2017Da263, Seopo-si, 2017Da263, and thus, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

B. The costs necessary for the judgment are borne by the obligor and reimbursed by the obligor in the course of enforcement. As such, the cost of enforcement may be collected with the claims indicated in the executive title in the compulsory execution procedure based on the pertinent executive title without any separate executive title

Therefore, even if the original obligation indicated in the enforcement title is fully repaid, if the enforcement cost is not reimbursed, the enforcement title is excluded from all.