1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2000Gahap2498 is KRW 60,000,000.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of lease deposit with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2000Gahap2498, and on June 23, 2000, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 60,000,000 and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from May 24, 200 to the date of full payment” was finalized on August 10, 200.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

Based on the instant final judgment, on May 2, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate on the scale of 11,616 square meters for D forest land owned by the Plaintiff with the Jungcheon-gun District Court C, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, on or before May 2, 2016, since the extinctive prescription of the obligation based on the final judgment of the instant case had expired prior to the Defendant’s filing an application for compulsory auction on the instant real estate, the Plaintiff is not liable for the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the instant case should not be denied. The Defendant asserted that on August 14, 2000, upon receiving a provisional attachment order issued by Seoul Western District Court 200Kahap1129, the extinctive prescription was interrupted, and thus, it was suspended

According to the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff shared shares of E and the real estate of this case with 1/2 shares, and after the final judgment of this case, the defendant attached the claim amount of KRW 60,000,000 as the receipt No. 10908 on August 17, 2000 and the claim amount of KRW 60,000 on the title of the plaintiff among the real estate of this case (hereinafter "provisional attachment of this case"), and the plaintiff acquired shares of up to 1/2 on March 30, 202 through the division of the jointly owned property of this case, respectively.

According to the above facts, the provisional attachment of this case by the defendant is the obligation based on the final judgment of this case.