1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Ulsan District Court Decision 2013Gahap691 Decided October 15, 2014.

Based on the facts, on October 2, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the loan (Ulsan District Court 2013Gahap6991) and rendered a judgment on October 15, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall pay 16% per annum from May 31, 2013 to October 15, 2014, to the Defendant for KRW 221,166,66, and KRW 200,000 among them, and KRW 20,00,000 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The Defendant appealed against the appeal by the Plaintiff (Ulsan High Court 2014Na8196) but the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “instant judgment”) became final and conclusive around that time.

【Ground of recognition” did not have any dispute, or there was a significant fact in the court, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff as to the movable property owned by the plaintiff, the defendant received dividends of KRW 28,188,660 from the auction procedure on September 23, 2015, and the plaintiff deposited KRW 300,000,000 on October 30, 2016 with the defendant as the principal deposit, and deposited KRW 16,793,265 on October 27, 2016, thereby extinguishing all of the plaintiff’s obligations according to the judgment of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be rejected.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1 and 6 of evidence Nos. 5-1 and 6, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 28,188,660 to the Defendant on September 23, 2015 from the distribution procedure (the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch C) for the movable property owned by the Plaintiff, which the Defendant participated based on the judgment of the instant case. Of the above distribution schedule, the part against the Defendant was finalized, and the Plaintiff deposited the underlying Acts and subordinate statutes under the Act No. 4852 of Ulsan District Court 2016, Oct. 10, 2016; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 300,00,000 with the purport that “the deposited person has actually offered the fact that the deposited person has refused to receive,” and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 300,000,000 with the above district court 2016, Oct. 27, 2016.