청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a clerical error in writing with regard to KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit return claim against the Plaintiff, as stated in the letter of evidence No. 1 of Suwon District Court
No. 2014 Other Bonds No. 1212 is subject to seizure and assignment order.
B. After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for full payment of the full amount, and rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter “decision to recommend reconciliation of this case”) with the content that “if the Plaintiff arrives on January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff shall be ordered from B to 101 Dong 1203, and at the same time, 80 million won (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) shall be paid to the Defendant at the time when the Plaintiff received an order from B to 101 Dong 1203, each of which would be deducted from the unpaid rent of B and all of the liability for damages under the lease agreement on the said apartment. The decision became final and conclusive on September 17, 2014 as there was no objection by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
C. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claims against two financial institutions based on the original copy of the Decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, which was issued by the Jung-gu District Court 2016TT 51765.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is part of the lease deposit that the Plaintiff should return to the lessee B.
However, around January 15, 2014, with respect to KRW 72 million among the above KRW 100 million, a pledge was established on or around January 15, 2014, and around March 31, 2014, B was notified that the claim was transferred to D.
Accordingly, on February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid each of KRW 72 million to HK Savings Bank, a pledgee, and KRW 28 million to D on March 13, 2016.
Therefore, the deposit of this case is extinguished due to the plaintiff's above repayment or each of the above amounts is indicated in the decision of recommending settlement of this case.