1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Suwon District Court 2012Gahap20256, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff during the said lawsuit at the same court 2014Gahap3774.

B. On August 20, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment on the Defendant’s counterclaim that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 295,056,008 won and 90,224,408 won among them, 5% per annum from November 21, 2013 to August 20, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

C. According to the instant judgment, the Defendant applied for the seizure of the investment certificates that the Plaintiff had against the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and the judicial assistant officers affiliated with the said court accepted the Defendant’s above seizure application on September 23, 2015.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of this case, and is currently pending in the appellate court [Seoul High Court 2015Na25473, 25480 (Counterclaim)].

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Inasmuch as a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution on a claim for non-permission of compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case can be contested by an appeal, a lawsuit of objection cannot be brought unless the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(1) Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act (Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act). This part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the instant judgment, which is not finalized in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, is unlawful by itself, as seen earlier.

B. The plaintiff filed a petition for non-performance of compulsory execution against the seizure of investment certificates, but the plaintiff filed a petition for non-performance of compulsory execution against the seizure of investment certificates, but the petition for objection is based on the executive authority's own executory power.