1. The Defendant’s decision on the amount of litigation cost set forth in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kao-4182 against the Plaintiff is based on.

1. In fact, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs at Seoul Central District Court 2014Kao-4182, and on November 18, 2014, the said court rendered a decision to determine the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as KRW 63,610,292.

On January 6, 2015, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction for real estate owned by the plaintiff to Suwon District Court in accordance with the above decision to determine the amount of litigation costs and applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff.

The Defendant, based on the above determination of the amount of litigation costs, filed an application for the issuance of a collection order and seizure of claims against the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the new bank, which the Plaintiff had against the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the new bank, and received from the above court the order of seizure and collection on January 21, 2015.

On February 12, 2015, the defendant filed a report with the above court that it collected KRW 30,000,000 from a new bank that is a garnishee company.

On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,000, Seoul Central District Court 2015, KRW 6412, KRW 37,769,752 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 30,000,00 collected by the Defendant from KRW 67,769,752, plus KRW 4,159,460, and KRW 63,610,29, and KRW 300,00,000, which was collected by the Defendant at KRW 67,769,752 following the Seoul Central District Court 2015, KRW 2015, KRW 113, and KRW 742,00 (the amount of additional expenses for claims seizure and collection order under the aforementioned decision to determine the amount of litigation costs) as the principal deposit, as the principal deposit, on June 11, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, A1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant according to the above decision of determination of the amount of litigation costs was all extinguished by the plaintiff's deposit for repayment, compulsory execution based on the above decision of determination of the amount of litigation costs must be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.