1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend reconciliation in July 26, 2017, the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch 2017Gau1226 case against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 26, 2017, the court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 1,00,000,000 by August 31, 2017. If the Plaintiff fails to pay the full amount by the due date, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the full amount of the unpaid amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 1, 2017 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant ruling”).” The said ruling was finalized.

B. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,010,280 to the Defendant’s account as repayment according to the instant decision.

C. On September 25, 2017, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order for the execution of the instant decision (Seoul District Court Jinwon Branch Branch 2017TTTTT 3959), and disbursed KRW 4,000 in total, 48,400 in the delivery charge, and 44,400 in the execution charge.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

가. 원고가 피고에게 송금한 2017. 9. 25. 당시 이 사건 결정에 따른 지연손해금은 약 10,274원이므로(≒ 1,000,000원× 25/365 × 15%), 이 사건 결정에 따른 원리금은 합계 1,010,274원이다.

On the other hand, the expenses required for compulsory execution are borne by the debtor and are to be reimbursed preferentially by the execution, so such expenses are to be collected together with the claims indicated in the name of the debtor in the compulsory execution procedure, based on the relevant executive title, which is the basis for the execution without any separate executive title. Ultimately, the original obligation indicated in the executive title was extinguished by repayment.

Even if the expenses for the execution are not reimbursed, it shall not be allowed to seek a exclusion of the whole executory power of executive titles.

In conclusion, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,010,280 to the Defendant on September 25, 2017, and thus, the obligation according to the instant decision was repaid, but it was 48.