(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단165766

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단165766

청구이의

Text

1. The Seoul Central District Court Order 2014Kao-4669 dated January 27, 2015 and the Seoul High Court Order 2014Kao-469 dated April 2015 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Title 1) The Defendant filed an application with this Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in the loan repayment case with this Court No. 2014Kamada4669, which became final and conclusive. Accordingly, this Court decided on January 27, 2015 that the Plaintiff is KRW 7,812,150. The Defendant filed an application with Seoul High Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs and the amount of litigation costs in the loan repayment case with Seoul High Court No. 2014Kama143, Seoul High Court No. 2014Kama143, the Defendant filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs and the amount of litigation costs. Accordingly, the said court rendered a decision that the Plaintiff bears the litigation costs on April 20, 2015, and that the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 6,611,650.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant executive titles”

B. On the basis of the instant enforcement title, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate at KRW 14,423,800 with respect to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court B, and the said court rendered a decision to commence the auction procedure on May 18, 2015.

C. On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 14,428,00 to the Defendant’s account with the repayment of the obligation under the instant executive title, and thereafter, paid the Defendant the execution cost of the said auction case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 6, 9, 10 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, since a debt based on the executive title of this case is deemed to have been fully repaid, compulsory execution based on the executive title of this case shall be dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.19 2016가단15468

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.01 2018가단19294

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.01.06 2015가단10948

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.08.13 2018나1053

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.08 2019나597