logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.02.23 2017재가단48
대여금
Text

1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Formation of the protocol subject to quasi-examination;

A. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of loans of KRW 20 million and damages for delay as Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2016Da33814, and subsequently amended the purport of the claim and the grounds for the claim, as stated in the purport of the claim, on October 12, 2016.

B. On September 19, 2017, at the mediation date, the Plaintiff, his attorney-at-law, and the Defendant present at the court, “1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,000,000 to September 30, 2017. If the Defendant fails to pay the said money by the payment date, the unpaid amount and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the said payment date to the day of full payment. On February 2, 2017, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is waived. 3. Legal costs and expenses are borne by each party.” The instant quasi-examination protocol (hereinafter “instant mediation protocol”).

2. Whether any ground for quasi-examination exists;

A. The Plaintiff asserts as stated in the grounds for a petition for quasi-examination, and the instant protocol for conciliation contains grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and seeks revocation of the instant protocol for conciliation.

B. The part of the grounds for retrial cited by the Plaintiff, which is against the judgment, cannot be a ground for retrial as to the protocol of mediation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 451(1)7, 8, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a ground for retrial as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)2 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)2 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Therefore, the quasi-deliberation suit of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion, the quasi-examination of this case is dismissed.

arrow