1. The defendant's Seoul District Court Decision 2014Na1065 Decided September 26, 2014, which rendered the defendant's decision to the plaintiff in the Jeonju District Court and the Eup branch court in the Dongan District Court.

1. Facts of recognition [the grounds for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, each entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings];

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for service cost claim (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Gau1065, the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Na1065, and the Defendant’s legal representative was B (the Defendant’s legal representative in the main office).

B. On September 26, 2014, the above court held that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 8.7 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 12, 2014 to March 19, 2014; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”

The judgment of this case is hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case".

(B) The instant judgment was finalized. (b) On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 8.7 million, which is part of the principal and interest obligations based on the instant judgment, into the account of B, which was the litigation representative of the instant previous lawsuit. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,030,825, which is the balance of the principal and interest obligations based on the instant judgment, into the Defendant’s account. According to the facts established on February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant against the Defendant was entirely extinguished due to the Plaintiff’s payment (deposit through the account) twice against the Defendant.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff of this case.

3. Accordingly, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds of its reasoning. It is so decided as per Disposition.