beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s decision on recommendations for the Defendant’s payment of loans (Seoul Northern District Court 2015 Ghana29610) to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 20, 2006, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant a cash custody certificate to pay KRW 5 million in cash, KRW 5 million in the face value of C issuance, KRW 5 million in the check number D until November 29, 2006, and KRW 5 million in the form of Kim as collateral, KRW 5 million in the face value of C issuance, KRW 5 million in the check number, and KRW 5 million in the form of a check number issued to the Defendant by January 20, 2007.
B. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 20, 2006, demanding payment of KRW 10 million and delay damages against the Plaintiff at the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Da29610, which claimed that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million in total to the Plaintiff on November 20, 206, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million from the said court on June 4, 2015, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 10 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”). Although the Defendant served on the Plaintiff on June 25, 2015, the said performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive on July 10, 2015 because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that, since the loans 5 million won related to the Check Number D were extinguished by payment in kind in Kim, and the remaining five million won obligations related to the Check Number E were repaid in cash and extinguished by the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution with the execution title of the instant decision on performance recommendation should be denied.
In regard to this, the defendant received 5 million won claim related to the check number D in payment in Kim. However, the plaintiff's claim on the claim of 5 million won related to the check number E is about 6 million won in cash, which the defendant supplied to the plaintiff.