1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Daegu District Court Decision 2019Da32879 Decided September 24, 2019.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On September 24, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment under the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch Decision 2019Kadan32879, and the above court accepted the Defendant’s claim on September 24, 2019, and rendered a judgment that “A Co., Ltd. (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to B (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 40 million with interest of KRW 12% per annum from June 5, 2019 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2019.

B. On October 25, 2019, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on real estate based on the original copy of the instant judgment with executory power over 3,174 square meters of land D, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, and the said court accepted the above application by the Defendant on October 28, 2019, and decided to commence the auction procedure and seize the said real estate.

C. Accordingly, on December 5, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 43,388,575 with the Defendant (B and E) as the principal deposit in Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu in 2019 as the gold No. 961 in 2019.

The specific reasons for deposit stated in the above deposit certificate shall be as specified in the attached Form.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the claims indicated in the executive title (the judgment of this case) have ceased to exist by the plaintiff's above repayment deposit.

On June 5, 2019 to December 5, 2019, the Plaintiff divided 184 days, the period from June 5, 2019 to December 5, 2019, and then calculated the damages for delay by multiplying it by '0.5041', which is the value less than the fourth decimal point.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking to exclude the executory power of the instant judgment is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by the court below to approve ex officio a decision to suspend compulsory execution under Article 47 (1) of the Civil Execution Act.