beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.23 2015가단98484

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da516265 Decided April 29, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on April 29, 2015 that "the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) 25,409,395 won and 20% interest per annum from July 9, 2014 to the date of complete payment (the plaintiff of this case)" (the plaintiff of this case shall pay to the plaintiff of this case 25,409,395 won and 20% interest per annum from July 9, 2014). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter "final and conclusive judgment of this case").

2) The Defendant applied for the forced economy on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as Cheongju District Court Cheongju Branch C, with the final judgment of this case as the executive title.

3) On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 31,325,475 with the principal and interest of debt and enforcement expenses based on the instant final judgment at the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) (No. 11802). [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

B. The principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s obligation up to the deposit date (as of June 4, 2015) of the Defendant based on the instant final judgment is KRW 30,017,893 [the principal = interest of KRW 25,409,395 [the principal = interest of KRW 4,608,498,498 [the principal] (=25,409,395 won x 0.2 x 0.2 x 31/365]].

In addition, the execution cost incurred up to the date in the compulsory auction procedure of real estate is KRW 1,302,940 (=registration tax of KRW 71,340,000, KRW 27,300,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 1,187,300, KRW 100).

(A) The Plaintiff deposited KRW 31,325,475, which exceeds 31,320,833 won (=30,017,893 Won 1,302,940) of the principal and interest of the obligation and the execution cost pursuant to the final judgment of the instant case. As such, the enforcement force of the final judgment of the instant case should be excluded.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and this is accepted.