beta
Text
1. On January 31, 2019, Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Gadan114378, the lease deposit case against the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 31, 2019, in Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Gadan114378, which the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff, the conciliation was concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, to the effect that “the Plaintiff and Nonparty B shall jointly pay the Defendant KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant by April 15, 2019. If the payment is delayed by the Plaintiff and Nonparty B, the late payment shall be paid to the Defendant in addition to the damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the above payment date until the full payment date (hereinafter “instant conciliation”; and the protocol following the conciliation was “instant conciliation protocol”).
B. On May 21, 2019, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction as Seoul Eastern District Court D with respect to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the title to execute the instant conciliation protocol, and received a compulsory auction decision.
(hereinafter “Procedure for Compulsory Auction”). C.
On March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited 5,540,984 won (40,000 won x 0.15 x 0.15 x 338 days x 366 days, and less than won) with the principal 40,00,000 won as a result of the instant conciliation from April 16, 2019 to March 18, 2020 as Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 906 on March 18, 2020, the interest amount of 5,540,984 won (40,000 won x 0.15 x 0.15 x 338 days x 366 days x 1,448,560 won (e.g., delivery fees 152,689,30 won , 3,000 won , 4,500 won , 400,7467
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that compulsory execution under the instant conciliation protocol shall not be permitted, since all obligations owed to the Defendant pursuant to the instant conciliation protocol were repaid through the instant deposit, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that compulsory execution under the instant conciliation protocol should be denied. 2) As to this, the Defendant’s auction cost for the instant auction procedure is KRW 6,050,000.