1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2015Da5364551, and won the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and thereafter, the Plaintiff appealed as the same court 2016Na68146, but the judgment on the merits became final and conclusive on November 9, 2016.

B. The above judgment of the first instance court is that the Plaintiff bears the litigation costs.

C. On February 6, 2018, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the court of first instance as 2017Kamama1726, and the judicial assistant of the first instance court rendered a decision on February 6, 2018, stating that “The amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff has to pay to the Defendant in relation to the lawsuit on the merits is KRW 6,218,657.”

(The statement of cost of lawsuit attached to the above decision shall be as shown in the attached Form).

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the determination of the amount of litigation costs as above, on February 20, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a ruling with the purport of approving the disposition of the above judicial assistant officer, and the Plaintiff was dissatisfied therewith (Supreme Court Decision 2018Ra453, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Ra453, Supreme Court Decision 2019Ma5209, Supreme Court Decision 2019). The appeal and reappeal were all dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim is as of November 4, 2016 between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

7. While withdrawing an appeal on the merits of the lawsuit, the costs of the lawsuit were to be borne by each party. The Defendant filed an application for the determination of the amount of the lawsuit costs of this case against the above agreement, and the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the lawsuit costs against the Defendant according to the above decision, and sought non-performance of compulsory execution

3. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the overall purport of the arguments, according to the record containing the agreement and the process of the agreement, Eul's dividends No. 134.