beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the District Court Decision 2003Kadan474 decided July 9, 2004.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 9, 2004, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the payment of goods with this court's 2003da47744, and was sentenced to the judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 50 million won and 20% interest per annum from November 26, 2003 to the day of complete payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case").
B. Accordingly, the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on February 12, 2005, as the Plaintiff appealed as the court 2004Na5236, but the appeal was withdrawn on February 12, 2005.
C. On the other hand, on September 16, 2004, the above appellate trial continued, the sales contract was prepared between the Defendant and C (the trade name before the change is Co., Ltd. D; hereinafter “C”) with the content that the Defendant purchases the Dobong-gu Seoul Building E (hereinafter “instant officetel”) from C in KRW 49,216,00.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion was transferred the right to sell the instant officetel 702 under the name of accord and satisfaction with the claim against F, the representative director of C, and then transferred the right to sell the instant officetel again to the defendant under the name of accord and satisfaction with the obligation based on the judgment of this case. Thus, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.
B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a direct purchase of the instant officetel 702 from C, not a payment in kind from the Plaintiff.
3. Although there was no direct disposition document between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that transfers the instant officetel 702 as a payment in kind of debt based on the instant judgment, the following circumstances, i.e., the instant officetel 702, which are acknowledged by considering the respective statements in subparagraphs A, 2, 4, and 6 and the entire purport of the pleading in the witness G’s testimony, are as follows.