1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff sold 1,500,000 won to the Defendant, which is the Plaintiff’s possession, but entered into a sales contract to deliver the instant Trackter with the receipt and redemption of the remainder KRW 1,400,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to seek an amount equivalent to 7,500 won per day of delivery and delay of the instant fleet as the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch 2007Gahap878, and on November 20, 2007, in the process of the said lawsuit, a compromise was established to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant fleet to the Defendant by November 30, 2007, but if the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant fleet by the date of delivery, 100,000 won per day shall be paid for delay damages (hereinafter “instant protocol”).”

C. On March 28, 2008, the enforcement officer delegated by the Defendant, with the title of execution of the instant protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol in this case, sent the instant protocol to the Defendant by executing the delivery of corporeal movables in the land near Yongnam-gun C (hereinafter “instant site”).

The Defendant calculated the damages for delay based on the instant protocol of conciliation [10,000 won =10,000 won x 117 days (18 days from December 1, 2007 to March 27, 2008) or 117 days as sought by the Defendant.

[] Based on the amount claimed, the Gwangju District Court issued a collection order on August 7, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim as the 2013TTTT3420, and issued a collection order on August 7, 2013 by the said court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuits in this case ex officio as to whether the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation is legitimate, and the plaintiff shall deliver the records of the case to the defendant due to his own fault.