1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Changwon District Court 2016Na52948 against the Plaintiff was “2,952,373 won and this.”

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for embezzlement return against the Changwon District Court Decision 2015Da3719, which was sentenced to the following judgment on April 22, 2016, and the original District Court Decision 2016Na52948, which was the appellate court, was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on February 15, 2017, and became final and conclusive on March 3, 2017.

Defendant (A) paid to the Plaintiff (B) 38,00,000 won with interest rate of 15% per annum from April 17, 2015 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment claim”). B.

On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 38 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Daegu District Court Decision 2016No. 661 Decided January 15, 2016, stating the fact that the cause of deposit was the criminal agreement on the embezzlement case and the amount of damage reimbursement.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the appropriation of deposit money for performance

A. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1), the instant deposit was paid out in full, and KRW 37,983,516 was paid out to the North Daegu District Tax Office, the Defendant’s obligee, in the course of distributing the claim against the advance payment. The said dividend payment remains against the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 4,950,411 in the event of satisfaction of the claim against the instant judgment deposit. (2) The Defendant’s claim on the instant deposit money is insufficient to fully repay the amount of the claim against the instant judgment deposit based on the deposit date, and thus, its repayment was not effective.

In addition, since the deposited money of this case includes not only the claim of this case but also the criminal agreement amount of embezzlement case 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 2929, the principal and interest to be appropriated for the claim of this case cannot be calculated unless the amount of the criminal agreement is determined.

B. Each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Defendant’s argument regarding criminal agreement amount.