청구이의
1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the seizure and collection order shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff paid 3.5 million won to the defendant in accordance with the protocol of conciliation in this case, compulsory execution based on the protocol of conciliation in this case should be denied, and the seizure and collection order based on the protocol of conciliation in this case should also be revoked.
B. First of all, determination on the part of the claim for cancellation of the seizure and collection order, we examine whether the lawsuit relating to the claim for cancellation of the seizure and collection order is lawful ex officio.
With respect to the decision on the seizure and collection order, pursuant to Articles 227(4) and 229(6) of the Civil Execution Act, a document of cancellation of execution may be submitted to the executive agency before the enforcement agency objects to the immediate appeal or completes the enforcement act through the immediate appeal, and the revocation thereof may be sought. As such, the part seeking cancellation of the seizure and collection order among the instant lawsuit is unlawful
C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 3.5 million to the Defendant on April 9, 2015, based on the following circumstances, not the amount of reconciliation based on the instant protocol of compromise, but the amount of KRW 800,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on April 9, 2015, separately, is deemed to have been repaid by the Defendant on November 2014, which the Plaintiff had against the Plaintiff.
1) In the instant protocol of conciliation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that “if the provisions of reconciliation are implemented, they will not raise any objection regarding the termination of labor relations in the future.” However, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 3.5 million by January 22, 2015, which is the date of payment under the said protocol of conciliation, and the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2015, that 80,000 won was not paid by November 2, 2015.”