1. It is based on the judgment of Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Kadan1077 decided July 26, 2016 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a claim for penalty of 2015da1077 with the Jeonju District Court, and on July 26, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment that “the Defendant jointly and severally with C to pay the Plaintiff 20 million won out of KRW 40,000,000, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 21, 2014 to July 26, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “final judgment of this case”). B.

On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 21,934,246, including the principal amount of KRW 20 million and the total damages for delay up to that time, based on the final judgment of the instant case, with the Defendant as the principal deposited in gold No. 533 of this Court in 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 21,934,246.

C. The Defendant, with the final judgment of this case as the executive title, applied for a compulsory auction by this court D with respect to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff applied for the suspension of compulsory execution by this court 2016KaMa222.

On September 9, 2016, this Court cited the suspension of compulsory execution. D.

After that, the defendant received the money deposited as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid all principal and damages for delay based on the instant final judgment. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant final judgment shall not be permitted, and this court approves the decision to suspend compulsory execution on September 9, 2016 regarding the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution (No. 2016Kao22).

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that the defendant should bear the cost of execution due to the compulsory auction case of this court's D concerning real estate owned by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the occurrence and amount of execution cost, and the defendant's above assertion is acceptable.