beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2010Na46741) is based on the protocol for conciliation of the loan case.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of a loan of KRW 200 million with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Gahap4060, and the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) became final and conclusive on July 5, 2011, in the appellate trial proceedings of Seoul High Court 2010Na46741, the Seoul High Court of the instant case, “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant by December 31, 201. If the performance of the said obligation to pay money is delayed, the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum, but it shall be paid at the rate of KRW 150 million per annum.”
B. Until December 31, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant by December 31, 2011 as agreed upon, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 50 million under the instant protocol of mediation.
C. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant was issued a decision to commence a compulsory auction for real estate owned by the Plaintiff with Busan District Court C with regard to the real estate on the ground that the claim amount based on the original copy of the instant protocol with executory power as the “interest amount of KRW 160 million and KRW 10 million out of the said money.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to waive the remainder of claims under the instant conciliation protocol and terminate a provisional seizure completed by the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff. According to the said agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant conciliation protocol should be denied.
The Defendant received KRW 5 million between the Plaintiff on May 14, 2013 and agreed to waive the remainder of the claim under the instant conciliation protocol.