1. On July 26, 2017, Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2017Kao-1168, against the Defendant’s Plaintiff, for the confirmation of litigation costs.

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs incurred in relation to the judgment on the case of unjust enrichment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the father- branch court of the Incheon District Court 2017Kadan168, Incheon District Court 2015 Gohap1025, Seoul High Court 2015Na2064948, and the Supreme Court 2017Da2072222. On July 26, 2017, this Court rendered a final determination of the amount of litigation costs (hereinafter “instant determination”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff is obligated to reimburse the Defendant with the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is KRW 8,391,820, the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is obligated to reimburse to the Defendant” on January 16, 2018, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 8391,820,820.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that, inasmuch as the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory execution against the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant decision (as Incheon District Court Branch Branch Order 2017Kadan12250, 2017 Malcheon District Court Order 2017 Bal 35056, 2017 Bal 38380, and 201 Bal 3830) and filed an application for the cancellation or cancellation of enforcement, the instant lawsuit

On the other hand, in a case where a compulsory execution based on a judgment is completed as a whole, and the defendant obtains satisfaction, there is no benefit to seek denial of compulsory execution due to a lawsuit of demurrer (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489, Apr. 25, 1997). However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the execution force of the decision of this case is extinguished, and as seen thereafter, the defendant asserts that the execution force of the decision of this case should be maintained, and thus, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The cause of the claim.