beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s decision on July 18, 2013 as Busan District Court Decision 2012Da5929 Decided July 18, 2013 as to the Plaintiff is in force.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 18, 2013, the Busan District Court 2012Gahap5929, which the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff, rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 72,00,000 to the Defendant as well as damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “judgment 1”), and the judgment of the first lawsuit became final and conclusive on February 28, 2014.
B. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant executed the instant collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with the Busan District Court 2013TTTT22748, designating the judgment amount as the claim amount of lawsuit No. 1 as the claim amount, upon receiving the Defendant’s seizure and collection order against the ten financial institutions.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the judgment of the first instance under Busan District Court 2015Gahap5487 (hereinafter “the second lawsuit”). However, during the course of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to seek cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage established by the Defendant on June 13, 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the first floor No. 101 of the ground-based building C at Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 22, 2016, the conciliation was concluded at the same time with the Defendant’s cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 2,649,00 to the Defendant.
The plaintiff paid the amount set forth in the judgment of the first lawsuit and KRW 2,649,00 according to the result of mediation of the second lawsuit to the defendant through deposit, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have fulfilled all the obligations to the defendant pursuant to the judgment of the first lawsuit. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the first lawsuit shall be dismissed.