beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the non-contentious lawsuit. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was such an agreement solely on the statement of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was such an agreement, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 9, as to the claim for the refund of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million against D's Defendant who leased Nos. 104, 2004 and 2004, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 3,90,000,000,000 from the Defendant, as to the claim for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000 won for the claim amount as of May 7, 2014, and the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the instant order") was delivered to the Defendant on May 13, 2014, and around July 1, 2014, the lease contract between D and the Defendant, a collection right holder, barring special circumstances.
3. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of termination of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D settled the lease deposit with the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel all the claims against D, including the instant decision, regarding D’s lease deposit claims.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, at the time of the settlement of accounts, only the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the execution of the remaining seizure and collection order except for the instant decision, and did not waive the claim for collection under the instant decision.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 9, the Plaintiff is 988,000,000 won remaining after deducting overdue rent, etc. from the lease deposit between D and the Defendant on July 1, 2014.