1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On March 27, 2015, this Court has regard to cases where a request for suspension of compulsory execution is filed by this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking a loan of KRW 4,000,000 and damages for delay thereof, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on September 23, 2014, upon the issuance of the payment order by this Court 2014j2663.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 500,000 out of the above loans to the Defendant’s account.

C. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant applied for the commencement of compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s real estate to this court C with the title of execution of the instant payment order, and this court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on the 12th of the same month following the following day.

On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,242,575 as the total amount of the remaining loans and interest for the Plaintiff under this Court No. 848 in 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff alleged in the parties asserts that since the plaintiff deposited the debt amount under the payment order against the defendant in full, the enforcement force of the payment order of this case should be excluded. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not pay the expenses incidental to the payment order of this case and the expenses for the compulsory execution procedure with the execution title of the payment order of this case.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the executive title ordering a payment of money fails to reimburse expenses incurred in the enforcement, whether it is possible to seek a whole exclusion of the enforcement force, first of all, whether the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is entitled to seek a full exclusion of the enforcement force. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the enforcement force of the instant payment order could not be avoided due to the Defendant’s failure to receive the enforcement cost of the enforcement procedure commenced with the enforcement force of the instant payment order as the enforcement force, this paper examines the legitimacy of the order. (2)