1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Based on the selective claim added at the trial court, the defendant shall be the plaintiff 21,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 11, 2010, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Da478666, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 28,50,000 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 16, 2008 to September 24, 2009, and 20% per annum from September 25, 2009 to the date of full payment,” and on March 3, 2010, the said ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive.

B. On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the ruling on recommending reconciliation as above, received a seizure and collection order as to the deposit claims in the new bank account (C, D, hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant as the Daejeon District Court 2010TT 3049, and accordingly, collected the total sum of KRW 26,249,013 on March 30, 2010, and reported the collection to the above court on March 31, 2010.

C. However, the account of this case was used for the business account of the said store by taking over the restaurant store in the name of the defendant on the fourth floor of the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F building, after obtaining permission from the defendant, by acquiring the passbook in the name of the defendant, the gold card, etc. used from the previous year.

Accordingly, E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of KRW 26,249,013 of the above collection amount as the Daejeon District Court 2012Gadan963, and the above court on April 13, 2012 determined that “The above collection amount under the name of the Defendant is actually used by E, and the Plaintiff may have been well aware of such circumstances.” As such, the Plaintiff shall return the above money collected by the Plaintiff, but this is reasonable to deduct the amount of KRW 5,00,000 borne by E against the Defendant, and then resolve the dispute at one time,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 21,00,000,000 to E” (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on recommending reconciliation of this case”). Accordingly, the above settlement recommendation decision became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff and E did not raise any objection.

The plaintiff is to E by August 30, 2012 in accordance with the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case.