beta
Text
1. The Defendants are 30,400,000 won to each Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 17, 2014 to August 27, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with Defendant Law Firm Shin (hereinafter “Defendant Law Firm”) regarding the case of application for provisional seizure and the case of the merits against C, and Defendant B was an attorney in charge of the instant case.
B. The Defendant Law Firm filed an application for provisional attachment (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan3828 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Plaintiff’s agent, with the agreed amount of KRW 126,143,00,000, and received a provisional attachment order on September 21, 2012.
C. Around January 3, 2013, Defendant Law Firm filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap50232, claiming payment of the agreed amount of KRW 126,143,000, and delay damages as the Plaintiff’s agent. In the above lawsuit, the decision of recommending reconciliation was rendered on August 22, 2013 (hereinafter “the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”). The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.
The main contents of the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case are as follows.
1. C pays KRW 60,00 to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff shall receive the said amount from C, and simultaneously implement the procedures for the withdrawal of the application and the cancellation of the execution with respect to the instant provisional attachment application case.
2. Where C does not perform its obligation to pay the amount set forth in paragraph 1, 126,143,00 won and damages for delay calculated by adding 5% per annum from July 1, 2012 to March 7, 2013, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.
E. The Plaintiff urged C to pay the above KRW 60 million by September 30, 2013. However, the Plaintiff failed to provide performance for the withdrawal and cancellation of enforcement of the instant provisional seizure case, which is simultaneously performed with the above payment obligation. Defendant B also did not provide performance for the withdrawal and cancellation of enforcement of the instant provisional seizure order. Defendant B was 126,143,00 won under Article 2 of the Reconciliation Recommendation Decision.