1. Based on the Defendant’s final decision on the amount of litigation costs for the Defendant’s High Government District Court Decision 2017Kao294.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to the case of filing a claim for the return of down payment and penalty between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”), the Defendant filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Ui Government District Court 2017Kadan294 (hereinafter “former lawsuit”). On January 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a final decision that the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the Defendant by the previous lawsuit was KRW 104,170, and the said decision (hereinafter “instant decision”) became final and conclusive on February 28, 2018.

B. Based on the instant decision, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff to this court C, and the compulsory execution procedure (hereinafter “instant execution procedure”) began.

C. Accordingly, on May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 104,170,000 as the litigation cost according to the instant decision (No. 3371 of this Court).

With respect to the execution procedure of the instant case, the Defendant disbursed the execution cost of KRW 955,686 [the amount to be paid to KRW 906,06,00 (=the amount to be paid 1,400,000 - the balance to be returned 493,940) out of the service cost of KRW 34,426 (=the amount to be paid 270,000 - the amount to be returned - KRW 235,574) registration and license tax of KRW 7,200, KRW 3,000 registration and license tax of KRW 7,200, KRW 5,000 registration and license tax of KRW 5,00]. [The fact that there is no ground for dispute over the recognition, each entry of KRW 1,20, and subparagraphs 1 through 5, and 1 through 5, the substantial fact to this court, the purport of the entire pleadings,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant decision should be denied, inasmuch as the Plaintiff paid all the obligations under the instant decision with the deposit made on May 18, 2018.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff deposited only the amount according to the instant decision and the execution cost required for the instant execution procedure was not repaid.

(b) judgment;