청구이의
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant's District Court against the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for this court to be stated is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. All pages 6 and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted and the following shall apply:
The Plaintiff asserted that the entire obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendant under the instant conciliation protocol was extinguished by the Defendant’s receipt of the entire deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 without any objection. However, in light of the fact that the time when the Plaintiff deposited the instant case is prior to the formation of the instant conciliation, and that the Plaintiff was able to withdraw the instant deposit to the Defendant after the instant conciliation was completed, it is reasonable to deem that the said deposit is part of the claim under the instant conciliation protocol, and that the claim under the instant conciliation protocol was completely extinguished solely on the ground that the Defendant received the deposit without objection.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
The Defendant asserts that the instant deposit is not a repayment based on the instant protocol, but a repayment based on the instant monetary loan agreement, etc.; however, in light of the following: (a) the process and content of the instant protocol of mediation; and (b) the Defendant returned the original of the instant monetary loan agreement, etc. to the Plaintiff at the time of withdrawal of the instant deposit; (c) it is reasonable to deem that the instant deposit is a repayment of the claim under the instant protocol of mediation; and (d) therefore,
On the other hand, if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and 6-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings are collected, the plaintiff was ordered to seize and order the claim for recovery of KRW 15,00,000 against the Republic of Korea by the District Court of Jung-gu, 2015TTT681 on January 28, 2015. The defendant seized and seizes the plaintiff's claim for full payment against the Republic of Korea in accordance with the conciliation protocol of this case.