1. The Defendant rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation in the case of objection filed by the Changwon District Court 2016Kadan2453 against the Plaintiff.

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim or when comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection against the defendant on August 8, 2016 as Changwon District Court 2016Kadan2453. As to the case of objection, "the plaintiff shall pay 528,060 won to the defendant within 10 days from the date of the final decision of recommending the settlement of this case. If the plaintiff delays the payment deadline, the plaintiff shall pay damages for delay with 15% interest per annum from the date following the due date of full payment until the date of full payment (hereinafter "reconciliation recommendation of this case"). The plaintiff shall be deemed to have deposited the defendant with the Busan District Court as the deposit of the defendant on May 15, 2017, and shall be deemed to have not been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been 15% from the date of the settlement recommendation of this case.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant started a compulsory auction procedure on the real estate owned by the plaintiff before the plaintiff's deposit because the plaintiff failed to repay according to the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim unless the expenses required for the above compulsory auction procedure are repaid

On the other hand, even if the defendant started compulsory execution based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, as long as the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case cannot serve as an executive title for the above execution cost, the defendant's assertion needs to be examined further.