1. Compulsory execution by the Defendant’s District Court Decision 2015Kao 5074 against the Plaintiff is based on the final decision of litigation costs.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

The Defendant filed a motion against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of litigation costs on the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the resident general meeting of Seoul High Court No. 2013Da72633, Seoul High Court No. 2014, 2012Gahap861, Seoul High Court No. 2013, 2013Na72633, and Seoul High Court No. 201453, May 198.

B. On December 14, 2015, the instant court issued a decision that “the Plaintiff shall fix the litigation cost to be repaid as KRW 10,256,552” (hereinafter “instant decision”) and the instant decision was finalized on December 29, 2015.

C. The defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff C to this court with the decision of this case as the executive title.

On April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the repayment of KRW 10,256,552, and KRW 1,054,870 for auction execution expenses (i.e., KRW 672,260, and KRW 24,610, as well as KRW 130,610, and KRW 220,00, as a certified judicial scrivener fee of KRW 130,000, as well as KRW 130,000, as a certified judicial scrivener fee of KRW 220,00) upon the instant decision (i.e., KRW 10,256,52, KRW 1,054,870).

E. Meanwhile, until July 25, 2016, KRW 536,460, out of KRW 832,890, out of the auction deposit in accordance with the above auction procedure, was disbursed.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff made a repayment deposit and fully repaid the repayment of the costs of lawsuit and the costs of execution according to the decision of this case, compulsory execution according to the decision of this case shall be denied.

The defendant asserts that ① the plaintiff suffered more damage than the amount deposited by the plaintiff, ② the plaintiff paid more expenses than the auction expenses deposited by the plaintiff.

B. We examine the defendant's argument, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above "B" argument, and only the statement in subparagraph 1 is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above "B" argument.