1. On March 13, 2017, the Daejeon District Court rendered a final decision on the Defendant’s litigation cost amounting to 2017 A22 on the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

A. On March 13, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs against the Plaintiff as the Daejeon District Court 2017 A2, and received a decision to determine that the amount of litigation costs to be repaid by the said court to the Defendant is KRW 6,204,584 (hereinafter “instant first decision”), and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. In addition, on March 13, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs against the Plaintiff as the Daejeon District Court 2017 A23, and received a decision to determine that the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff from the said court is KRW 6,204,584 (hereinafter “instant decision 2”), and the said decision was finalized around that time.

C. On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited 12,409,168 won (i.e., KRW 6,204,584 KRW 6,204,584) in total amount of litigation costs pursuant to the instant Order Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant orders”) with the Defendant as a depositee under the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 14065, Jul. 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the facts of recognition as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff deposited to the defendant totaling KRW 12,409,168 of the costs of lawsuit according to each of the decisions of this case. Thus, all of the plaintiff's obligations against the defendant under each of the decisions of this case were extinguished.

Therefore, since the enforcement force of each decision of this case should be extinguished, it is reasonable to deny the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant withdrawn the application and rescinded the execution of the order of seizure and collection against the plaintiff's claim under Daegu District Court Decision 2017TTT 11010, which was based on each of the orders of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair and asserted.

However, even if the Defendant revoked specific execution based on each of the instant decisions, the enforcement force of each of the instant decisions is not extinguished.