beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s geographical support against the Plaintiff was based on the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gahap235 Decided November 23, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the lease deposit as the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2017Gahap235, and the said court rendered a judgment on November 23, 2017 that “the Plaintiff shall receive from the Defendant the Plaintiff the second floor No. 204, the second floor No. 1016, the second floor No. 204 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and simultaneously pay KRW 780,000 to the Defendant,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant final judgment”). On December 8, 2017, the Defendant received a decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff based on the final judgment of the instant case.
(U) On December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,429,802,00 in return for the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant real estate under the final and conclusive judgment of this case (hereinafter “first deposit”), and on March 7, 2018, on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal to receive the compulsory auction, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,429,802 at the same court No. 489 of the same court until the time the compulsory auction of this case is suspended, on the grounds of the Defendant’s refusal to receive the payment.
(hereinafter “the second deposit”). On March 22, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 770,420,000, excluding the amount of the first deposit claim against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, for the purpose of preserving the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the first deposit of this case against the Defendant, among the first deposit of this case, for the sake of preserving the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the first deposit of this case against the Defendant, and withdrawn the application for the compulsory auction of this case on the same day
[Reasons for Recognition] A, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8,'s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's claim seeking denial of compulsory execution based on the final judgment of this case for repayment due to the first and second deposits of this case.