1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na1800 Decided November 6, 2013.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2013, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment on the following: “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 2,611,968,902 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 31, 2011 to March 27, 2012; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and the judgment becomes final and conclusive as it is; the Plaintiff was served with the Defendant’s provisional attachment and notification of attachment; the Plaintiff was deposited with the Defendant’s creditors on August 29, 2016 in execution of KRW 1,428,085,199, which is part of the above judgment debt; the payment procedure commenced; the Plaintiff’s total amount deposited with the Defendant’s debt number 1,4275,199; and the Plaintiff’s remaining amount deposited with the Defendant’s debt 281,278,2786,2786,2786, etc.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the obligation of the judgment under Paragraph (1) of the Disposition is all extinguished due to the completion of the distribution procedure following the execution deposit as of August 29, 2016 and the execution deposit as of December 8, 2016, compulsory execution based on the above judgment against the defendant against the plaintiff should be denied.

The defendant asserts that the repayment does not take effect because the distribution procedure following the execution deposit as of December 8, 2016 is not completed. However, if a third-party debtor makes a deposit for execution under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act, he/she is exempted from the debtor's obligation, so the defendant's argument above is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.