1. The Defendant’s execution against the Plaintiff by the Changwon District Court 2016 tea 1112 is denied.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff parked DMW car owned by the Plaintiff’sbu C (hereinafter “instant passenger car”) in front of the first floor E-F restaurant of the Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si.

The defendant has passed through his work and delivery, and his body fighting with the defendant's work and G work and vision attached.

In the process of concluding the above body fighting, the defendant added the blicks, etc. of the automobile of this case to the blick.

B. While the Defendant and G were under investigation by the prosecution due to the damage of property on the instant car, in the criminal conciliation procedure under Article 2015-641 of the original District Prosecutors’ Office on October 14, 2014, the Defendant and G agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9 million with the agreed amount by November 17, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

On June 2, 2015, the Defendant deposited 4.7 million won as the cause of deposit with the principal and the instant agreement with the Busan District Court’s branch branch.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”). Since then, the Plaintiff received the said deposit.

On June 21, 2016, the Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff by asserting that the receipt of the Plaintiff’s deposit constitutes unjust enrichment, and filed an application for a payment order claiming the return thereof, and that “4.7 million won and/or damages for delay are paid from August 1, 2015” with the above court (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff received the instant deposit under the instant agreement, and thus does not constitute unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment against the Defendant based on the instant payment order does not exist, and compulsory execution is enforced.