임대차보증금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claim altered in the trial, shall be modified as follows.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be cited or added, among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (3) below to the new argument of the plaintiff at the trial of the court of first instance; and (c)
2. Parts used or added;
A. From No. 4th to No. 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for objection to the instant protocol of conciliation with the Ulsan District Court 2016dan5818, Ulsan District Court 2016. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for objection to the instant protocol of conciliation and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution under the instant protocol of conciliation with the said court 2016KaMa146, and received a decision to suspend compulsory execution on June 16, 2016.
2) In the above lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that compulsory execution based on the instant conciliation protocol shall not be allowed before the Defendant pays KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff did not waive his/her claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant due to the instant conciliation. On February 14, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff renounced his/her claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant due to the instant conciliation and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and rendered a judgment that revoked the said decision for the suspension of compulsory execution. 2) The Plaintiff appealed the above judgment as the Ulsan District Court 2017Na20937, and then withdrawn the appeal on March 13, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
3) On March 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) executed a real estate transfer execution (Ulsan District Court 2016No. 2016No. 1667) on the part on which the location map of the instant land was indicated among the land Nos. 1 and 2 as an executive title; and (b) thereafter, removed the instant building as of the present date. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 4, and the entire pleadings.]