청구이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The text of the judgment of the first instance.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 18, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff who had been an employee of the Defendant under the jurisdiction of the Suwon District Court 2011Gapo26153, which sought the return of KRW 14,667,622, which the Plaintiff received as the interim settlement amount of retirement allowances, and the payment of damages for delay thereof, and received a favorable judgment from the said court on February 16, 2012.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Suwon District Court 2012Na11324, and in the appellate trial procedure on April 1, 2013, “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 8,700,000 to the Defendant by May 30, 2013,” and a mediation protocol was prepared regarding the payment of KRW 8,70,00 to the Defendant.
(A) The conciliation protocol in which the purport of the claim is written is written, hereinafter referred to as the “instant conciliation protocol”).
On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 8,700,000 to the Defendant’s corporate bank deposit account (number C) in order to repay the obligation under the instant protocol of mediation.
However, since the defendant's deposit account of the above company bank was executed by the obligees, the defendant did not withdraw the above 8,700,000 won.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that, by remitting KRW 8,700,000 to the defendant's deposit account, the debt under the instant conciliation protocol has ceased to be fully repaid, compulsory execution under the instant conciliation protocol should be denied.
In this regard, the defendant unilaterally transferred money to the defendant's account seized without any consultation can not be said to be an effective repayment.
3. Therefore, in principle, the performance of monetary obligations, such as the obligation under the instant protocol, must be carried out by means of realizing the substance of the obligation (Article 460 of the Civil Act), and the performance of monetary obligations, such as the obligation under the instant protocol, must be carried out by means of delivering cash to the creditor, the defendant. However, the Plaintiff continued the employment relationship with the defendant.