beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Kadan53468.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (the defendant alleged that Gap evidence No. 3 was partially altered after his/her signature, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Gap evidence No. 5-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments.
A. On November 6, 2007, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Da53468 Decided November 6, 2007, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the loan and received the decision that the plaintiff paid 15,000,000 won and damages for delay corresponding thereto to the defendant. The decision was finalized on December 25, 2007.
B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal on July 8, 2009, but was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal did not meet the requirements for the subsequent completion of the appeal in the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Na6682 Decided September 25, 2008.
C. On October 26, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written agreement stating that “The Defendant agreed to waive all enforcement on the loan case No. 2008Na6682 by receiving three million won from the Plaintiff.”
The plaintiff deposited 3 million won to the defendant on October 26, 2009 in accordance with the above agreement.
2. The facts that the plaintiff and the defendant agree to waive compulsory execution based on the judgment on the above loan claim by receiving three million won from the plaintiff are as seen above. It is reasonable to deem that the non-execution agreement is a contract under private law in relation to the realization of the substantive claim, and since the execution in violation of this agreement is an unfair execution, it can be deemed that it is a contract under private law in relation to the realization of the substantive claim, it constitutes a ground for objection by analogy or mutatis mutandis application of Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da19072, Jul. 26, 1996). Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.