1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, whose executive title against the Plaintiff was the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Gahap1028, Seoul High Court 2017Na2051984, filed an application with the court for the confirmation of the amount of litigation costs, and on July 11, 2018, “The Plaintiff confirmed that the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is KRW 9,909,828, to be repaid to the Defendant is KRW 9,909,828.”

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against C and the claim attachment and collection order against the Defendant based thereon 1) The Plaintiff raised the objection claim against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kahap104815, Seoul Eastern District Court 2017Na203207 (hereinafter “instant merits”).

(2) On August 10, 2018, upon filing an application with the court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with respect to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was determined to confirm that the amount of litigation costs to be repaid to the Plaintiff is KRW 16,009,998 (Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Kadan555) (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul East Eastern District Court”) and upon the determination of the foregoing paragraph 1, the Plaintiff served the Defendant on September 14, 2018 with respect to the Defendant, “The amount of the claim on September 11, 2018, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), as the amount of KRW 16,04,190 (hereinafter referred to as “the amount of the litigation costs, etc. to be reimbursed by the Defendant to C” (Seoul East East District Court 2018Gudong District Court 20142). This was served on the Defendant on September 14, 2018.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Since the Defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount to the Plaintiff according to the above collection order, the Plaintiff’s automatic claim is offset against the Defendant’s claims as stated in the Defendant’s claim purport against the Plaintiff. As such, since all of the Defendant’s claims against the Plaintiff according to the decision stated in the claim purport have extinguished, compulsory execution based on the decision stated in the claim purport should be rejected

B. On March 15, 2018, the Defendant agreed with C on March 15, 2018, while the other lawsuit brought by Defendant C against the Defendant.

In other words, C is the same.