1. It is based on the judgment of Suwon District Court Decision 2017Kadan125267 Decided August 9, 2018 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the takeover amount against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on August 9, 2018, the lower court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 25, 2013 to August 9, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

According to the judgment of this case, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff to the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch C, and received the decision to commence the auction on March 19, 2019.

On November 14, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 71,061,643 as the principal of the obligation under the instant judgment and the principal of the obligation until November 14, 2019 with the Defendant as the principal depositee.

The defendant spent KRW 4,411,610 as an auction deposit, delivery fee, etc. in the process of applying for a compulsory auction of the above real estate, and the amount of KRW 1,986,474 has been used until the procedure for the compulsory auction of the above real estate is suspended, and 2,425,136 have remaining.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, is that since all obligations under the judgment of this case were extinguished by the deposit for repayment, compulsory execution against the plaintiff in accordance with the judgment of this case should be denied.

Since the amount claimed by the plaintiff is insufficient to fully repay costs of compulsory execution, costs of lawsuit, and principal and damages for delay of debt pursuant to the judgment of this case, the plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of the whole executory power of the judgment of this case.

Judgment

Expenses incurred in compulsory execution under Article 53 (1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the debtor and reimbursed preferentially in the course of the execution, and such expenses shall serve as the basis for the execution without any separate executive title.