1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Suwon District Court Decision 201Gadan34262 against the Defendant Company B is an executory exemplification of the judgment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 600 million (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Seoul Central District Court No. 1496, 2013, as the Seoul Central District Court, in order to suspend compulsory execution by the original sentence of provisional execution in the case of the construction cost, etc., against the Plaintiff and B (Seoul High Court 2012Gahap1637) on the joint name with B (hereinafter “B”). The instant deposit was fully contributed by the Plaintiff, and the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2012Na102423) rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution against the Plaintiff and B on January 25, 2013 by the time the judgment of the appellate court was pronounced.

B. On July 19, 2013, the Defendant, as a creditor of B, was issued a collection order for each of the claims and collection orders (hereinafter “collection and collection order for each of the claims of this case”) with the former District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2013TTTT 4218, Nov. 5, 2013, 2013, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Office 201Ga34262 (hereinafter “each of the claims of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In a case where the applicants filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution under a joint name and the court ordered the deposit of security with a joint guarantee, even if the applicants deposited the security under a joint name, the ownership and ratio of the right to claim the deposit shall be determined according to the substance of the right to claim the deposit and the right to claim the deposit.

In fact, the Plaintiff and B deposited the instant deposit under a joint name made contributions to the Plaintiff’s own property, and the Plaintiff did not contribute any money in connection with the instant deposit. Therefore, the right to claim the instant deposit money is entirely owned by the Plaintiff.