1. The term of validity of loans in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na41009 Decided April 29, 2015 is based on the original judgment with executory power.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan of KRW 20,000 against the Plaintiff by this Court Decision 2014Da357098, and filed the same year.

7. 9. Judgment in full winning the case

(hereinafter “instant judgment of the first instance court”). (b)

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court No. 2014Na41109, and on April 29, 2015, the judgment of the first instance court was revoked, and the judgment was rendered to the effect that the Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Defendant 15,746,66 won and 24% interest per annum from October 3, 2014 to the date of full payment.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). C.

On September 2, 2014, upon the declaration of provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction for eight real estates, including Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 202, which were owned by the Plaintiff, as C of this court.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). D.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 19,287,724 (i.e., principal and interest of the instant judgment up to September 9, 2015 (i.e., KRW 15,746,66 and KRW 24% delay damages of KRW 3,541,058 each year from October 3, 2014 to September 9, 2015) with gold 1941 in this Court, and on September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,814,210, excluding KRW 1,806,100, the remainder of KRW 1108,100, excluding the remainder of KRW 1,806,100 for compulsory execution expenses paid by the Defendant for the instant auction, as gold 13, 2015.

E. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant reserved and received each of the said deposits.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the Defendant’s obligation according to the judgment of this case and the Defendant’s compulsory execution expenses for the auction of this case. Thus, even if the Defendant reserved an objection at the time of payment of deposit money, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the judgment of this case was extinguished.