청구이의
1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend reconciliation as of November 30, 2018 regarding this Court’s 2017 Single 131025 Collection Claim against the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts (1) In order to preserve the claim against C (this Court Decision 2014Gahap4624 delivered in 2014Gahap4624, claim amount KRW 498,017,95), the Defendant Union requested a seizure and collection order as to the amount equivalent to the claim amount during the monthly rent that the Plaintiff shall pay to C under a building lease agreement for the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu D Working Building EF Teaching Institutes (based on the above lease agreement, hereinafter “C’s rent claim against the Plaintiff”), and received a seizure and collection order as of January 18, 2016.
(2) In order to preserve the claim against C (this Court Decision 2017Kade 10018, claim amount, and claim amount 26,314,265 won), the Defendant Mutual Association requested a seizure and collection order as to the claim of this case (the claim of this case) and received a seizure and collection order as to the claim of this case on January 31, 2018 (this Court Decision 2018 Ta 101073). (3) The Defendant Mutual Association received a seizure and collection order as to the claim of this case (the claim of this case) against C (the court 2017Kade 10305 and 10306, and each recognized claim, claim amount, 5,873,470 won) as to the claim of this case and the collection order as to the claim of this case. < Amended by Act No. 15184, Apr. 6, 2018>
(4) The Defendant Union filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the basis of the seizure and collection order of each of the claims listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) above. On November 30, 2018, the court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 15,621,060 to the Defendant up to February 20, 2019. If the Plaintiff delays the payment of the said amount, the Defendant Union shall pay the unpaid principal plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the due date to the date of the payment of the said amount.” This ruling became final and conclusive around that time.
This case among the contents of the above ruling of recommending reconciliation.