1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2005, the Defendant issued a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 85,000,000 and 20% per annum from August 18, 2005 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. On December 6, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the instant judgment. On June 7, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with Seoul High Court Decision 2006Ka679 on June 7, 2006, and on June 13, 2006, deposited KRW 85,000,000 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da819 on June 14, 2006 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

C. After that, the above appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005Na112989) rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal on October 11, 2006 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal is unlawful, and the judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time as the Plaintiff did not appeal.

According to the judgment of this case, the defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the plaintiff's right to claim the deposit of this case from the Jung-gu District Court 2006TTT 4393 on December 1, 2006, and thereafter, the defendant applied for the cancellation of security as to the deposit of this case by subrogation of the plaintiff as the collection creditor, and received the decision of cancellation of security on December 21, 2006.

Since then, the written decision to revoke the above security was submitted on January 12, 2007 to the deposit case of this case.

E. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2006, Sejong Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s creditor, received the Defendant’s provisional seizure order against the Defendant’s claim for payment of the deposit of this case as Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Kadan7258 on November 15, 2006. The above decision reached the third debtor’s Republic of Korea (a public official in charge of Seoul Central District Court deposit) on November 20, 2006.

Accordingly, the defendant is competing with seizure of the plaintiff's right to claim the recovery of the deposit of this case.