beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s judgment on the franchise fee case (No. 2015Na37549, Sept. 1, 2016) against the Plaintiff is based on the Suwon District Court Decision.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for franchise fees with the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gaso5840, and the above court rendered a judgment citing the claim on October 1, 2015, and the Plaintiff appealed as Suwon District Court 2015Na37549.
On September 1, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment changing the judgment of the first instance court with the purport that “the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 3,043,710 and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from October 15, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant executive title”), including the claims extended on September 1, 2016. The plaintiff appealed, but the judgment dismissing the appeal became final and conclusive.
B. On March 22, 2017, the Defendant received a collection order for the deposit money deposited by the Plaintiff as a deposit for release against provisional seizure against a separate real estate, based on the title of execution of the instant case. On March 22, 2017, the Defendant distributed KRW 5,762,285 to the Defendant on March 22, 2017, the total amount of principal and interest based on the title of execution of the instant case.
(The above money was paid in KRW 1,961,020 to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the defendant's collection right holder, pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTTT 102076, and KRW 3,801,265, respectively, pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT 17567). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the principal and interest on the executive titles of this case have ceased to exist in full by the defendant's repayment, compulsory execution based on the executive titles of this case cannot be permitted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.