1. The Defendant’s Seoul District Court Jinwon Branch case No. 2016Gau6194 against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2016.

1. The facts below the facts acknowledged are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4.

A. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the acquisition amount under the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Order 2016Gaso6194, and the decision of performance recommendation (15,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from June 25, 2016 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment) was finalized around that time.

B. On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 16,329,040 (principal KRW 15,000,000 from June 25, 2016 to August 30, 2016, KRW 330,410, based on the annual 12% ratio from August 30, 2016 to KRW 998,630, based on the annual 15% ratio from August 31, 2016 to February 8, 2017) based on the determination of performance recommendation.

C. Nevertheless, the defendant has enforced compulsory execution against the plaintiff's property based on the above decision of performance recommendation.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, a debt based on the decision of performance recommendation against the plaintiff's defendant was extinguished due to the above payment deposit.

As such, the objection of this case seeking the exclusion of the executory power is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

(The costs of the lawsuit in the case of acquisition by transfer are collected through the determination of the amount of separate costs of lawsuit, and the costs of appeal due to another defendant's appeal in the case of acquisition by transfer are costs unrelated to the plaintiff).