logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2015.07.10 2014가단45114
청구이의
Text

1. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant’s horizontal Housing Site Board against the Plaintiff based on the protocol of mediation (2012Gadan19319).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the price for goods with the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court KRW 2012Gadan19319 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). On August 29, 2013, the conciliation was established as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 11,643,750 to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2013.

2. The plaintiff shall receive the amount specified in paragraph 1 from the defendant at the same time, and shall refund 621 copies to the defendant.

3. In relation to the franchise supply contract, under mutual agreement, the Defendant supplies 500 products to the Plaintiff by November 15, 2013.

4. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, 70% of the appraisal costs shall be borne by the Defendant, 30% by the Plaintiff, and the remainder of the costs of lawsuit by the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively.

B. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff with the Incheon District Court 2014No2161 by deeming KRW 11,643,750 as the claimed amount as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the instant protocol of conciliation as the amount of claim under paragraph (1) of the instant protocol, and executed the seizure of movables around March 13, 201

C. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the above claim amount of KRW 11,643,750.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have fulfilled all the obligations related to Paragraph 1 of the protocol of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on this is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow