1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is denied based on the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Gaso31965.

2. This.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2013, in collusion with C on August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff forged a real estate sales contract, etc. on the land of Daejeon Jung-gu and fraudulently acquired 20 million won from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant fraud”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da31965 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) and filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the money obtained by deception and the damages for delay thereof with the Daejeon District Court. On June 23, 2016, the judgment of the said court that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 20 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from August 26, 2013 to March 20, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on December 31, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a complaint against C against C in the course of a criminal trial ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da3863) that was in progress on March 20, 2017, to be paid KRW 30 million in relation to the said fraud, and withdrawn the said complaint and made a written agreement with C, and received KRW 30 million in several occasions from March 20, 2017 to November 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where the victim agreed that the perpetrator would not be punished for the perpetrator in the course of the investigation or criminal trial against the perpetrator of the illegal act, it is reasonable to view that the amount was paid as part of the compensation for damages, unless there are circumstances, such as clearly stating that the amount received at the time of the agreement is paid as consolation money, in particular, in the case where the victim received money under the pretext of agreement from the perpetrator.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da53942 delivered on September 20, 1996). The foregoing evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in this case are acknowledged as a whole, namely, C.