1. The Defendant’s original copy of the judgment with Seoul High Court 2013Na1466 against the Plaintiff is an executory exemplification of the case of unjust enrichment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C claiming payment of KRW 200 million against the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiff and C embezzled KRW 200 million from the Defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gahap20902, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim entirely on November 24, 201.

B. From the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na1466) to which the Defendant is dissatisfied with it, the part against the Plaintiff was revoked on September 13, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid 200 million won to the Defendant and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from May 29, 2013 to September 13, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na1466) to the Defendant’s appeal. The judgment became final and conclusive on March 20, 2014 as the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

(hereinafter referred to as "the final and conclusive judgment of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and it is reasonable to see that the sub-execution agreement is a contract under private law in relation to the realization of the substantive claim, and since the execution in violation of this agreement is an unlawful execution in substance, it shall be deemed that it is an unlawful execution (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da19072, Jul. 26, 1996). Accordingly, in the first instance trial on January 9, 2012 where the first instance trial of the final and conclusive judgment of this case was in progress, the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff a confirmation document stating that “the Defendant will not enforce enforcement against A according to the result of the judgment following the return of unjust enrichment (Seoul East Eastern District Court 201Gahap20902). It is not disputed between the parties, and according to the above recognition fact, the Defendant shall not perform compulsory execution under the final and conclusive judgment of this case.”