beta
Text
1. The defendant's claim for the registration of cancellation of ownership (204Kadan4293, May 3, 2004) against the plaintiff is made.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be admitted by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap's evidence of 1 to 4, and Eul's evidence of 1 to 3, and there is no reflective evidence:
The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for cancellation of ownership (No. 2004Gada4293), and on May 3, 2004, the above lawsuit was filed on May 3, 2004, "the plaintiff shall pay 95,000,000 to the defendant until June 30, 2004: Provided, That if the above amount is not paid by the payment date, the damages for delay shall be paid at a rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment. The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff has ownership of the amount of 964m2 in Ulsan-gu C case, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the claim of this case was abandoned, and mediation was established to the effect that "the costs of lawsuit and the costs
B. After that, on July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff deposited the deposited person as the Defendant for payment on the ground that the Defendant did not receive the obligation under the above protocol of mediation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant protocol of mediation”), with the amount of KRW 95,000,000 as the Ulsan District Court Decision 2004No3656, July 1, 2004, and the amount of KRW 52,060 (amount of KRW 95,00,000 x 0.2 x 1/365).
C. On July 2, 2004, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate with the Ulsan District Court D on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform the obligation under the instant protocol of mediation.
On July 6, 2004, the Defendant received the deposit money on the same day without reservation.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's obligations pursuant to the conciliation protocol of this case against the defendant are all extinguished due to the above repayment deposit, compulsory execution with the above conciliation protocol as executive title shall not be allowed.
B. The defendant actually received the deposit money on July 6, 2004. Since the plaintiff did not deposit the interest accrued until the date, the plaintiff's deposit is made.