1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The first instance.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following contents to “2.B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion”, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The issues of this case in addition are whether such expenses can be paid preferentially in the compulsory execution procedure according to the above judgment, even without a separate title, in a case where “the expenses necessary for compulsory execution” are “expenses necessary for compulsory execution” in the auction procedure where the judgment was extinguished due to repayment deposit but the judgment was applied for compulsory auction as executive title prior to being notified of the fact of deposit, and subsequent expenses were disbursed (the considerable portion of the advance payment was disbursed after being notified to the Defendant).

On October 8, 2018, when the obligation of the plaintiffs' judgment against the defendants was extinguished on the date of payment deposit due to lawful payment deposit, it is difficult to view that the expenses incurred thereafter by the defendants constitute "expenses necessary for compulsory execution" under Article 53 (1) of the Civil Execution Act.

In its concept, compulsory execution is a "legal procedure in which the executive agency of the State, at the request of a creditor, executes a claim for performance under private law, which is indicated in the executive title on behalf of the creditor, by compulsory execution." As long as the right to demand performance indicated in the executive title has already been extinguished, it cannot be said that the "expenses necessary for compulsory execution" under Article 53 (1) of the Civil Execution Act arises.

In other words, the creditor was unaware that the right to demand performance indicated in the executive title had already ceased to exist.

With respect to the expenses of execution disbursed in the course of disputing the legality of the deposit or the extinguishment thereof, a separate executive title shall be attached to the compulsory execution procedure based on the executive title extinguished by a legitimate deposit for repayment.