1. The defendant's judgment in Incheon District Court 2013Kadan9598 (Main Claim) and the defendant's damages against the plaintiff are 2013Kadan9604 (Counterclaim).

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2017, in Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da9598 (Main Office), 2013Kadan95604 (Counterclaim), the judgment rendered that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 55,120,310 and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 12, 2016 to the date of full payment” was rendered, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2018.

B. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff-owned real estate with the title of execution during the appellate trial, and rendered a decision of compulsory auction by Incheon District Court C.

The above auction procedure is in the state of suspension of enforcement as of the ruling of suspension of enforcement. 2018Kadan81, 2018Kadan232.

In the above auction procedure, the defendant spent 3,579,120 won in total as expenses for execution until now.

C. On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 55,120,831, and KRW 13,817,831 on March 16, 2018, respectively, to the Defendant as the principal and interest ordered in the judgment. On November 11, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted the unpaid principal and interest accrued and KRW 49,772 on March 16, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,041,765 in this court the balance of the principal and interest calculated based on the cost of enforcement.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s claim based on the instant judgment was extinguished by repayment, and filed a lawsuit seeking non-performance of compulsory execution based on the instant judgment, as the Plaintiff paid all the principal and interest and the execution cost ordered in the judgment as above.

The results of appropriating the money transferred or deposited by the plaintiff to the principal and interest of the judgment and the execution expenses are as shown in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance.

The defendant's reply and its claim that KRW 3,579,120 of the enforcement cost should be deducted from the plaintiff's remittance, because the execution cost falls under a debt with no fixed time limit and is liable for delay from the next day after receiving the claim for performance.