1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C seeking reimbursement, etc. under the Changwon District Court smuggling Branch 2013Gahap767, and the said court on September 16, 2014, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending settlement of this case”) stating that “C shall pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant, but the amount of KRW 50 million shall not be later than August 28, 2014, and KRW 200 million shall be paid until August 31, 2015, and the period may be extended or paid in installments after mutual consultation; the remaining amount of KRW 250 million shall be repaid by August 31, 2016, but the period may be extended or paid in installments.” The instant ruling of recommending settlement of this case became final and conclusive on October 1, 2014.

B. C paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on August 28, 2014 in accordance with the instant decision of recommending reconciliation, but the remainder did not be paid.

C. Accordingly, on January 29, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against C’s corporeal movables with the claim amounting to be paid by August 31, 2015, among the instant ruling on recommending reconciliation, (i) the enforcement title of the instant ruling on recommending reconciliation, and (ii) KRW 200 million, among the instant ruling on recommending reconciliation, (iii) was executed on February 3, 2016 as to each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”).

On July 15, 2016, the auction date for each of the instant movables was in progress at the place of business of the said C, and the Defendant reported the highest price of KRW 100 million, and the enforcement officer permitted the Defendant to sell each of the instant movables.

The defendant set off the above sales price of KRW 100 million and the enforcement claim on an equal basis.

E. On the date of the above auction, the Defendant attempted to immediately remove part of the movables of this case from the place of business of the above C, but failed to remove them due to interference with C.

F. Accordingly, on July 22, 2016, the Defendant filed an objection to the enforcement thereof with the Gwangju District Court SupportF, and the said court on August 9, 2016.