1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which were married, filed a divorce lawsuit with the Busan Family Court 2012dhap2999 (principal lawsuit), 2012dhap3152 (Counterclaim), and rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff divorced from the Defendant on September 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 230,000 to the Defendant as division of property.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to Busan High Court 2014Reu572 (principal lawsuit) and 2014Reu589 (Counterclaim). In relation to the part on the claim for division of property on July 24, 2015, the above appellate court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 265,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment, and transfer the apartment in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant at Busan East-gu Busan High Court 104, 803 (hereinafter “the apartment in this case”), and that the Defendant shall be exempted from the collateral security obligation of the Korea CFF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea CFF”) established in the above apartment (hereinafter “the judgment in this case”).

Meanwhile, the argument of the instant judgment was concluded on May 8, 2015.

C. As to the instant judgment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Meu3158 (principal lawsuit), and 2015Meu3165 (Counterclaim), but the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 27, 2015, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal were dismissed.

On May 31, 2016 and July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid all property division and its delay damages to the Defendant based on the instant judgment. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of property division on December 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the premise that at the time of the judgment of this case between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, the defendant was the secured debt amounting to KRW 126,953,00, which the defendant agreed to take over.