1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kadan225609 Decided February 13, 2015.

1. In fact, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for construction cost as Seoul Central Court Decision 2014Ga225609, and on February 13, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) KRW 19,786,00 and interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from November 30, 201 to February 13, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

According to the above judgment, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate owned by the plaintiff to Daegu District Court Cho-dong, Daegu District Court Eul, and the compulsory auction procedure for the real estate was commenced.

On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 24,194,211 with the principal and interest of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No.7709, supra, up to the time of the said judgment.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, A1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Expenses for compulsory execution may be collected together with the claims indicated in the executive title in the pertinent compulsory execution procedure, based on the said executive title, which is the basis for the execution without any separate executive title. Therefore, insofar as the expenses for the execution are not reimbursed, all executory power of the pertinent executive title may not be claimed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da41620, Apr. 10, 1992), and Article 479 of the Civil Act concerning the order of appropriation of performance against the principal is applicable not only to repayment, but also to other causes of extinction of obligations, such as deposit, offset, etc. In this context, the expenses first appropriated include the litigation expenses or execution expenses incurred in the execution of the claim and are determined to determine the amount of litigation costs or to determine the amount of execution expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da818, Oct. 12, 2006). b.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 6 and Eul 2, the defendant shall pay 106,640 won for provisional seizure against real estate in the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, racing support B, and 492,50 won for auction deposit.