1. The defendant's decision on the Daegu District Court's Daegu District Court's racing support for the plaintiff was rendered on April 7, 2015, 2013Kadan6547.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition can be recognized by comprehensively considering Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the fact inquiry results of the Daegu District Court and the whole purport of the pleadings. A

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the court 2013da6547 seeking restitution of unjust enrichment.

On April 7, 2015, this Court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from September 24, 2013 to April 7, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). Although the Plaintiff appealed against this, the appellate court (Tgu District Court 2015Na6348) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on September 4, 2015, the instant judgment became final and conclusive on September 25, 2015.

B. Based on the instant judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate at this court on the land of 6255 square meters and 21 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff.

On September 22, 2015, this Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction.

(D). (c)

On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the principal of 50,000,000, damages for delay, KRW 9,033,721 (the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 24, 2013 to April 7, 2015, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to October 14, 2015) to the Defendant according to the instant judgment, and paid KRW 91,00 out of the auction expenses.

On the other hand, on May 27, 2016, when the lawsuit of this case is pending, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 234,163 of the amount payable during the auction cost, and paid KRW 6,301,740 of the litigation cost according to the final decision of the judgment of this case to the Defendant on May 30, 2016.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was extinguished by fully repaying the obligation pursuant to the judgment of this case, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.