1. Compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Suwon District Court 2016Kadan4796 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff is a compulsory execution.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da44796, and was sentenced to a judgment on December 28, 2017, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 115,00,000 won and KRW 100,000 among them, 24% per annum from February 26, 2015 to the date of complete payment, 15,000,000 won, 5% per annum from November 17, 2016 to December 28, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to December 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant related judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive after the appellate court and the final appeal judgment, as it became final and conclusive on February 19, 2019.

B. On April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of the instant judgment money (219,630,400 won = 207,108,383 won) for the Defendant with the Suwon District Court No. 3963 in 2019 and the Suwon District Court No. 8865 in 2019 and August 26, 2019.

C. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2018, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to Suwon District Court C upon the instant judgment. On August 26, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,600,927, which is the full amount of the expenses for the said compulsory auction for the Defendant, with the Suwon District Court No. 8870 on August 26, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s entire repayment of the relevant judgment and compulsory execution expenses, and thus, all of the above obligations, etc. have ceased to exist. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the relevant judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant was liable for the obligation of deposit against D Co., Ltd., but the above company submitted a list of property on which the loan claims against the Plaintiff were omitted in the procedure for specification of property requested by the said company, and was exempted from the obligation of deposit money from the said company on the basis

The plaintiff is recognized as 1. A.

(b) paragraph (3);