beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단24659

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend performance to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2013 by Daejeon District Court Decision 2013 Ghana9105.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2003, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff by filing a claim for return of the lease deposit with North Korea Branch of Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da37366, which stated that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 3,00,000 won and 20% interest per annum from April 5, 2003 to the date of full payment." The above decision became final and conclusive on August 10, 2003.

B. The defendant applied for a compulsory execution of corporeal movables with the above judgment as the executive title, and accordingly, the execution officer conducted a compulsory execution on the corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff and distributed KRW 50,100 to the defendant on December 16, 2003.

C. On September 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Hadan29328 and 2008Ma29328, and was granted immunity from the above court on March 24, 2009 (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”). The exemption exemption became final and conclusive on March 24, 2009.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure was omitted from the Defendant’s obligation to return the above lease deposit against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

E. Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for lease deposit for the extension of the prescription period as the Daejeon District Court 2013 Family Court 20105. On October 31, 2013, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 16, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”), and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive as is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was exempted from its responsibility as the exemption decision of this case became final and conclusive.