1. The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Kadan40768, May 18, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the case of a claim for construction cost filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Kadan40768, the conciliation was concluded on May 18, 2017 (hereinafter the instant conciliation) with the following content.

“The Plaintiff shall pay 95 million won (value-added tax) to the Defendant and the Intervenor by December 31, 2017, in addition to the amount of damages for delay calculated by adding 15% per annum from January 1, 2018 to the date of full payment.”

B. On May 25, 2018, the Defendant received a claim attachment and collection order issued by the Seoul Central District Court 2018TTTT3162 with the title of execution, and received dividends of KRW 58,950,780 in the distribution procedure.

C. As of July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff was obligated to repay according to the instant protocol of conciliation as of July 24, 2018, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 42,738,648 to the Defendant on the same day, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 56 million to the Defendant and repaid all the outstanding and compulsory execution expenses under the instant protocol of conciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant protocol was fully satisfied and extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant protocol of conciliation should be denied.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.