1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the judgment on the claim for rent claim against the Gwangju District Court 2014 Ghana7631.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the procedures for voluntary auction at Gwangju District Court B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 3, 2014.

B. On October 6, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff who occupied the instant real estate (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) claiming rent of the Gwangju District Court 2014Gaso76631, and the said court rendered a judgment to the Defendant that “from July 3, 2014 to the date of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate or the date of the Defendant’s loss of ownership” (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”).

As to this, although the Plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 26, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2017Na274), the appellate court did not deem that the Plaintiff’s failure to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff was legally served the filing of the relevant lawsuit.

'The judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that the judgment was pronounced.

Accordingly, the above judgment became final and conclusive because the plaintiff did not appeal.

C. On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,500,000 based on the final judgment of the instant case with the Defendant as the deposited person.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the mining district court No. 4750. [No. 4750] of 2017, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, 3, 4 and 7, the obvious fact to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was delivered to the Defendant on September 4, 2014, and the Plaintiff deposited 1.5 million won in excess of the rent to be paid to the Defendant according to the instant final judgment.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the final judgment of this case has ceased to exist due to repayment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s refusal of compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 4, 2014.

A, 5, 6, and .