1. On October 21, 2015, the Suwon District Court Decision 2015Kao 100254 decided Oct. 21, 2015 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant received a decision that “the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to pay to the Defendant according to the ruling on the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act by Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Gahap15193, Seoul High Court 2013Na202742, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da200999, the Defendant confirmed that the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant is KRW 3,819,758,” and the said decision was finalized on December 25, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant decision”). (b)

On December 3, 2015, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction to this court C on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff based on the original copy of the instant decision, and rendered a decision to commence the auction on the next day.

C. In relation to the above compulsory auction, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 1,416,340 for various costs, such as auction deposit, delivery fee, etc., and the present amount of KRW 239,230 and the balance of delivery fee 223,503 remain.

C. On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,528,808 (3,819,758, the amount of litigation costs determined in the instant decision, as well as KRW 709,050,050, which was the amount of litigation costs determined in the instant decision), and additionally deposited KRW 266,757 on May 12, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination 1) Costs necessary for compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the debtor and reimbursed with priority in the execution. Costs for such execution shall be based on the pertinent enforcement title, which serves as the basis for the execution without any separate enforcement title, and may be collected together with the claims indicated in the enforcement title in the relevant compulsory execution procedure. As such, in a case of demurrer, even if the original obligation indicated in the enforcement title is extinguished by repayment or deposit, insofar as the expenses for execution that the debtor is liable to reimburse are not repaid (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105195, May 24, 201).