1. Compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Changwon District Court 2016Na5614 decided May 23, 2017 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff is 12.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the purchase price of real estate with this court 2016Ga359, and the above court rendered a judgment against the Defendant on September 6, 2016, and the Defendant appealed with the Changwon District Court 2016Na5614. The above appellate court rendered a judgment on May 23, 2017, stating that “The first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 14,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from September 21, 2007 to May 3, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive on August 23, 2017 as it was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da20791).

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

After that, on September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to KRW 10,000,00 in the Plaintiff’s family form to C, an agent of the Defendant’s son; and (b) upon permission by C; and (c) on September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000 in the account known by C; (b) thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the instant final judgment was entirely extinguished; and (c) thus, compulsory execution based on the said final judgment should be denied.

B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to reduce the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant to KRW 10,000,000 according to the final judgment of this case was concluded on a conclusive basis, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) However, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 to the Defendant on September 5, 2017 that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 to the Defendant was acknowledged as above. Accordingly, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of satisfaction of obligation

(b).