1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part demanding the denial of compulsory execution with respect to KRW 20,174,430 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2000Gaso104767, and the above court affirmed on November 15, 2000, and on November 29, 200, the court rendered a judgment that "the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 10 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 28, 1999 to July 8, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 2001.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

According to the original copy of the judgment of this case with executory power, the Defendant received the seizure and collection order for the Plaintiff’s deposit claim as Seoul Southern District Court 2009TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTA, and collected KRW 3,00,000 around March 209, and KRW 2) the procedure for compulsory auction for the Plaintiff’s real estate to Seoul Southern District Court C, and received dividends of KRW 17,174,430 around April 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination

A. Generally, in a case where compulsory execution based on executive titles has been completed as a whole and an obligee has already satisfied, there is no interest in a lawsuit seeking non-permission of such compulsory execution by filing an objection to the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 delivered on April 25, 1997). In addition, even if a compulsory execution against a part of the amount of an executive title is terminated, that part of the amount is no longer the benefit of a lawsuit seeking a non-permission of compulsory execution by means of a lawsuit demanding an objection, and such part is dismissed, and the propriety of the claim on the merits must be deliberated only on the part for which the execution has not yet been completed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043 Decided May 29, 2014). B.

The Defendant collected KRW 3,00,000 in the relevant seizure and collection procedure based on the instant judgment, and received KRW 17,174,430 in the auction procedure, as seen above.

In light of the above legal principles, the above facts are examined.