소유권말소등기등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of consolation money, etc. against the deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”).
In the appellate trial of the instant case, on December 4, 2009, the following mediation (hereinafter “instant mediation”) was established between the Plaintiff and the Deceased:
(Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na7725). 1. The defendant (the deceased) paid to the plaintiff 3 million won with 5% interest per annum from December 31, 2008 to September 8, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.
3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.
B. The Deceased died on January 18, 2013.
As the inheritor of the deceased, there are the wife B, Defendant D and E, the wife of the deceased.
C. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail demanding the discharge of obligations under the instant protocol, and the mail was served on the Defendants on October 2017.
On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was granted the succeeding execution clause to the Defendants at the Daegu District Court. A certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was served on Defendant E on November 23, 2017, Defendant D on November 24, 2017, and Defendant B on November 27, 2017.
E. On December 12, 2017, the Defendants filed a report on special grace with the Daegu Family Court, and received the said report from the said court on February 6, 2018.
(F) On December 12, 2017, the Defendants filed a lawsuit seeking restrictions on the executory power of the instant conciliation protocol against the Plaintiff at the Daegu District Court on the ground of qualified acceptance.
(2) On May 4, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment that compulsory execution pursuant to the instant conciliation protocol against the Plaintiff’s Defendants was denied only to the extent that the Defendants exceeded the scope of the property inherited from the Deceased.
Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment, it was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal, and on January 2019.