1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 2006, the defendant filed a civil suit against the plaintiff and received a judgment from the Busan District Court that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 2,903,493 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 35% per annum from June 19, 2002 to the day of complete payment" (the judgment of this case hereinafter "the judgment of this case") and the judgment became final and conclusive.

B. After that, on October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 1,900,000 to the Defendant with respect to the amount of debt pursuant to the instant judgment, and paid the remainder to the Defendant with an agreement to fully exempt the Defendant from the total amount (hereinafter “instant debt adjustment agreement”).

C. However, on August 25, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the approval of the debt settlement agreement (reduction and exemption) that the debt settlement agreement became null and void on the ground that property not notified at the time of the instant debt settlement agreement was discovered as a result of the property inspection. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution (a claim attachment and collection order) based on the instant judgment with the Changwon District Court’s Jinju branch.

At the time of the instant debt settlement agreement, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant by stating “no applicable matter” in the inventory list, and prepared and delivered “written statement of debt exemption (related to the property investigation) with the condition of rescission that the full amount of the exempted amount will be reinstated if any additional property is discovered in addition to the newly discovered property as at the time of debt exemption.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 9, Eul’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff fulfilled all obligations under the instant debt settlement agreement, and the Defendant had already notified the Defendant’s person in charge at the time of the said agreement as to the additional property claimed by the Defendant, but did not enter the application in accordance with the recommendation of the person in charge.