청구이의 소
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a legal couple who completed the marriage report on May 13, 2004, have two children under the chain. The agreement was married on May 6, 2008.
B. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant on May 6, 2008 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) that “The Plaintiff, as the child support for the children, shall pay 50,000 won per month from May 1, 2010 to the Defendant (per annum 6% increase per annum), and if the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the child support, the Plaintiff shall add 7% interest per annum to the delayed payment (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a notarial deed No. 225 of 2008 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by a notary public who has the authority to execute the following as of the date of conclusion of the instant agreement.
- The plaintiff approves that the defendant has a liability of KRW 120,000,000.
- The plaintiff shall pay 500,000 won per month from May 1, 2010 to April 1, 2030.
- If the Plaintiff delays the repayment of the above amount, the damages for delay calculated by adding 7% per annum to the delayed amount shall be paid.
- In the event of a loss of benefit due to a bankruptcy, commencement of composition or company reorganization procedure, a transaction suspension, a delay in the payment of interest and installment from a bank, a third party, such as compulsory execution, provisional attachment, provisional disposition, application for auction, tax disposition, default, breach of contract, etc., the plaintiff shall pay the remaining amount to the defendant in lump
(hereinafter referred to as “the benefit of time”) d.
From October 1, 2010 to February 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 15,900,000 to the Defendant as child support.
E. On February 2015, the Defendant deemed that the benefit of time due to the instant authentic deed was lost, and applied for a seizure and collection order regarding the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name, and compulsory execution on the Plaintiff’s real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A No. 1.