1. The Defendant’s judgment on the instant case against the Plaintiff is rendered on January 5, 2016, 2015Na6314, and 2015Na6321 (Counterclaim).

1. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed multiple civil lawsuits for multiple years.

On October 26, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s apartment in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “judgment”) with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 3 million and 5% per annum from February 4, 2015 to January 15, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “judgment”), pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Na6314 (Main Office), 2015Na6321 (Counterclaim) Decided January 5, 2016, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the real estate in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

(Seoul Eastern District Court DD Real Estate Compulsory Auction case). On November 6, 2017, the plaintiff deposited 4.3 million won as principal and interest of the above judgment (this Court No. 6644 of 2017).

In addition, this Court applied for the suspension of compulsory execution by 2017Kamin240, and this Court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution by November 9, 2017.

2. The parties’ assertion and the key issue Plaintiff asserted that compulsory execution based on the judgment should not be permitted inasmuch as the original obligation indicated in the executive title was repaid with the above repayment deposit, and the Defendant asserted that compulsory execution cost does not fall under the execution cost and claimed that the execution cost of various items is not sufficient

In a case of demurrer, even if the original obligation indicated on the executive title becomes extinct by repayment or deposit, as long as the expenses for execution to be reimbursed by the debtor are not reimbursed, the whole executory power of the executive title may not be claimed to be excluded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Da2356, 89Meu121, Sept. 26, 1989, etc.). The key issue of the instant case is whether the sum of the obligations indicated in the above executive titles and the execution expenses owed by the Plaintiff is fully satisfied.

The purpose of the instant claim and its issues are mainly determined, and the progress of other cases between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are not directly related thereto.