1. The Defendant’s High Government District Court 2015Na23200 against the Plaintiff has the power to execute the management expenses case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the management expenses claim against the Goyang District Court 2015Da23232, and the conciliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was established as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

1. The Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff in this case) shall pay KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff (referring to the Defendant in this case), which shall be paid in installments of KRW 1,00,000 on the last day of each month from January 31, 2017 to December 31, 2017. If the Defendant delays the payment of the said installment once, he/she shall lose the benefit of the time, and immediately pay the unpaid balance at once, and shall pay the unpaid balance plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15 percent per annum from the day after delay to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

B. The Plaintiff did not pay KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant under Paragraph (1) of the instant conciliation clause (hereinafter “instant conciliation clause”), and the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s real estate under his/her own possession with the Goyang-gu District Court C, and the auction procedure commenced on July 18, 2017.

C. On December 24, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,00,000 for principal and KRW 2,239,060 for application for auction, and KRW 3,402,730 for delay damages as stipulated in the instant conciliation provisions, respectively, to the Defendant on December 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the plaintiff fully repaid the debt and enforcement expenses set forth in the instant conciliation, all of the defendant's claims arising from the instant conciliation were extinguished.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the conciliation protocol against the plaintiff by the defendant should be denied.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.