1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of a loan with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5282355, and sentenced the said court to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 79,50,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 24% per annum from September 1, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2016.

B. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul Western District Court C), and rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on October 12, 2016.

C. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 139,973,068 on the ground of deposit, stating as follows: (a) the Defendant was deposited with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court) No. 24619, the sum of KRW 79,50,000, statutory interest of KRW 60,115,068, and compulsory execution cost of KRW 358,00, and KRW 139,973,068, but the Defendant refused to receive it.”

(hereinafter “Deposit of this case”). [Ground of recognition] / Each entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, either directly or through the Plaintiff’s chair, sent the intent to pay the judgment amount to the Defendant several times, but the Defendant refused to accept the voluntary performance while withdrawing the judgment amount through compulsory execution.

As such, the deposit of this case is valid since the defendant clearly stated his intention to refuse receipt in advance and the plaintiff made payment.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) suggested that the Plaintiff agreed on the amount of KRW 2-3 million without presenting a specific amount of reimbursement in the south of Korea three times after the pronouncement of the instant judgment, and that the Defendant refused it, and thereafter, made a normal dialogue to the effect that the Plaintiff only was in the first place without the repayment plan, and the details of the provision of repayment are also related to the provision of payment.