(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.10.08 2014가단248

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.10.08 2014가단248

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On December 16, 2013, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion issued a notice of payment to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 10,481,615 to the Plaintiff by February 28, 2014, based on the authentic copy of the decision on the amount of litigation cost with executory power of this Court No. 2010Ka-66, this Court, which was issued by the Defendant.

However, B, which issued the above notice of payment, agreed not to exercise the right to claim the amount of litigation costs with compensation for having the Plaintiff rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff by false testimony.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the original of the decision on the amount of litigation cost with executory power of 2010Kao66 of this court against the plaintiff should be denied.

2. It is reasonable to see that the agreement on non-execution is a claim contract under private law in connection with the realization of a substantive claim, and since enforcement in violation of this agreement may be deemed to be an unjust enforcement in substance, Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application mutatis mutandis and shall serve as a ground for objection to a claim (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da19072, Jul. 26, 1996). However, the fact that there is an agreement on non-execution shall be proved by the plaintiff, and there is no other assertion that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion and there is no other assertion

All the details of the instant complaint and briefs prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff, and the details stated in detail at the time of the date of pleading shall be accepted.

However, since B, which is a member of the defendant under law, is not in the position to decide whether to exercise the defendant's right to claim the amount of litigation costs, it cannot be deemed that B is in the position to waive or transfer the defendant's right to claim on the ground that it is written in the notice of payment as "B

The evidence No. 1 is issued by the head of Taean Gun.

A public official in charge of tax has issued a written notice of tax payment under his/her name.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제505조

참조판례

-대법원 1996. 7. 26. 선고 95다19072 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.04.14 2014나106326

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.19 2015가단7552

-서울북부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015가단46611

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.07.23 2020가단12935

-제주지방법원 2018.04.02 2018가단656