임대차보증금
1. The litigation for quasi-examination of this case by the defendant (quasi-examination plaintiff) shall be dismissed;
2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be considered.
1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or are clear by the records:
On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of lease deposit, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, with this Court Order 2015da1689. On April 30, 2015, the instant quasi-deliberation protocol was prepared with the purport that the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the conciliation intervenor C, and D on the conciliation date on which the said lawsuit is pending.
- - The defendant shall be paid KRW 3 million to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be paid KRW 1.5 million up to May 31, 2015 and KRW 1.5 million up to June 30, 2015. 2) If the defendant delays the payment of the payment in installments once again, the defendant shall immediately lose the benefit of the deadline and shall pay the remainder to the plaintiff at once, but the remainder shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of loss of the benefit of the deadline to the day of full payment.
3) The Plaintiff waives the remainder of the claims. 4) The Intervenor, the Intervenor C, the Defendant, and the Intervenor D confirmed that all claims and obligations with respect to the instant case did not exist, except as set forth above, and they did not raise any civil or criminal objection (such as filing of a lawsuit, filing of a complaint, and filing of a complaint) for any reason on the day before the date of establishment of the conciliation.
5. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne respectively.
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the return of the lease deposit, and the contents of the loan, monthly rent, and paper were included in the protocol subject to quasi-examination of this case, and did not properly examine, and the defendant did not have sufficient time to prepare for the proper mediation, and the defendant responded to the mediation of this case due to a suppression and biased atmosphere. Thus, the above quasi-examination protocol of this case has a ground for re-examination corresponding to the quasi-examination of this case, and therefore, the above quasi-examination protocol of this case should be revoked.
Modern, as above.