1. The Defendant’s decision on the amount of litigation cost No. 2017Ka-136 against the Plaintiff was based on the Daejeon District Court Decision.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant received a partial favorable judgment in the lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Kadan114749). As to the instant case, the amount of the litigation cost that the Plaintiff is liable to reimburse to the Defendant was determined to be KRW 5,690,344.

(B) Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Kao-136, hereinafter referred to as the "Decision of this case").

Based on the instant decision, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on real estate with respect to the area of 166 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff, for the compulsory auction of the said real estate. On November 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered a judgment to commence compulsory auction on the said real estate.

The Daejeon District Court D, hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”).

On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,690,344 of the costs of lawsuit pursuant to the instant decision with the Defendant as the principal deposit. On February 14, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 491,126 of the execution cost (25,576 of the current status survey fees and appraisal fees, delivery fees, KRW 438,90,576, registration tax 11,380, education tax, KRW 2,270, stamp tax, KRW 10,00, and KRW 3,000), and KRW 110,000,000 for a certified judicial scrivener fee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 4-7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the plaintiff deposited the full amount of the litigation cost and the execution cost pursuant to the decision of this case, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff was extinguished by repayment.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant paid a total of KRW 1,276,650 as stamp, delivery fee, etc. at the time of the application for the auction of this case, the deposit for partial repayment of the debt shall not be effective unless the total execution cost is paid. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff was actually paid until the time of deposit.