1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a mediation protocol (hereinafter “instant mediation protocol”) with respect to the case involving Suwon District Court 2012Na36019 on April 29, 2013, stating that “1. The Defendant delivers part of the cross-story storage in Gwangju City C, D, and E to the Plaintiff. On February 2, 201, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant. The Plaintiff, on March 3, 201, prepared the mediation protocol (hereinafter “instant mediation protocol”).

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 2.5 million based on Article 2(2) of the instant conciliation clause.

[Sari District Court's Sungnam Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Sarinam Branch Court's Support")

(C) No. 1996, 2013 (hereinafter “instant deposit”). C.

On the other hand, on December 18, 2009 between the plaintiff and the defendant, a notary public is "notarial deeds of money loan contract" as the parent law firm No. 1079 as of December 18, 2009.

(D) The Plaintiff: (a) seized and collected the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the instant deposit based on the instant authentic deed; and (b) thereafter, the auction court distributed KRW 252,766 to G, who is the person holding the provisional attachment right, as the first priority among KRW 2,504,552, the amount to be actually distributed on September 26, 2013, and KRW 2,238,786 to G, who is the person holding the provisional attachment right, as the second priority; and (c) KRW 2,238,786 to the Plaintiff, who is the person holding the right to collect the instant deposit, as the second priority. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute; (d) evidence 2, 3, 6, and evidence 1 (including the serial number

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Since the Plaintiff deposited the instant deposit and fully repaid obligations under the instant conciliation protocol, compulsory execution under the said conciliation protocol ought to be denied. (2) The Plaintiff discounted the amount of face value of KRW 37.5 million to the Defendant. However, upon the settlement of the said promissory note and household check, the Plaintiff’s payment of promissory note as of June 18, 2006 is one of the authentic law firms with respect to the payment of promissory note as of KRW 31 million and due date.