1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of loans under the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2009da22967. On May 7, 2010, the Defendant: “The Plaintiff and D shall be jointly and severally paid KRW 29,000,000 to the Defendant; and in installments, KRW 5,000,000 until May 31, 2010; KRW 5,000,000 until June 30, 2010; KRW 5,000,000 until October 31, 2010; and KRW 10,000,000 until December 31, 2010; and KRW 4,000,000 until February 28, 2011; and the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid interest at the rate of KRW 20,000,000 from the day following the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). B.

The Plaintiff did not pay the amount of installments under the instant conciliation protocol to the Defendant, and the Defendant collected KRW 29,000,000 from June 201 to March 2013, 2013 upon receiving a seizure and collection order from Seoul Southern District Court 2010TTT District Court 2011470 as to the Plaintiff’s wage claim.

C. On the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to receive part of the claim under the instant conciliation protocol, the Defendant filed an order for the seizure and collection of the Plaintiff’s benefit claim amounting to KRW 19,058,00 with the Seoul Southern District Court 2013TTTT13896, which was issued on July 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, since the Plaintiff paid the principal amount of the Defendant’s debt, the amount equivalent to the damages for delay should not be subject to compulsory execution under the instant conciliation protocol.

Plaintiff

It is also true that the full amount of the claim has not been repaid, and the principal and the damages for delay are separately reasons for the execution of monetary claims.