1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant deposited the full amount of the judgment amount on behalf of the Defendant after the judgment entered in the purport of the claim became final and conclusive, and filed a lawsuit seeking objection against the Defendant under the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Da38115, supra.

1. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 400,000 to the Defendant by March 31, 2016.

However, where the defendant does not pay the above amount by the above payment date, the unpaid amount shall be paid with 15% interest per annum from the day after the payment date to the day of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that KRW 4,547,357 of the deposit money No. 4353 was reverted to the Defendant in Seoul Northern District Court in 2015, and the Plaintiff actively cooperates with the Defendant in receiving the deposit money.

3. The Defendant waives the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Da72204 Decided April 29, 2015.

4. The defendant shall withdraw the application for a compulsory auction of real estate D with the Suwon District Court known-gu D.

5. After receiving the above KRW 400,000 and deposited money, the Defendant consented to the cancellation of the security provided by the Plaintiff with respect to the case of suspending compulsory execution by Seoul Northern District Court 2015 Chicago170, and did not file an appeal against the revocation decision.

6. The plaintiff and the defendant confirm each other that there is no other claims or obligations in addition to this conciliation.

7. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne respectively;

B. On October 26, 2015, the instant case was submitted to the Seoul Northern District Court for conciliation by the Seoul Northern District Court 2015s. On March 10, 2016, at the date of conciliation, the following mediation (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) was established on the date of the Plaintiff’s representative members C and the Defendant’s attendance at the meeting, and the protocol for conciliation was prepared.

C. The original copy of the instant conciliation protocol was served on March 16, 2016 on the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation on October 27, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 in this Court.