(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단200591

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 2016.05.26 2015가단200591

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Central District Court 2012Na60854, Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “D”)’s lot number was changed from D to “D”) on the ground of the scarb roof (hereinafter “instant house”); and (b) on July 26, 2013, “the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the instant case)” at the same time paid KRW 23,00,000 to the Defendant at the same time with the delivery of KRW 39.82 square meters from the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the instant case; hereinafter the same shall apply) at the same time; and (c) the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”) did not conflict between the parties or by adding the purport of the entire statement in the evidence No. 1.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty E is not the instant house, but cement brickd housing, and there was no conclusion of a lease agreement regarding the instant housing.

Nevertheless, since the defendant submitted a forged lease contract to the court and received the final judgment of this case and proceed with the compulsory execution of the plaintiff's property, compulsory execution according to the final judgment of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The grounds for raising an objection should arise after the pleadings have been concluded (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Inasmuch as the allegations or defenses arising from the grounds that could have been generated and submitted before the closing of arguments in the final and conclusive judgment is interrupted by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new argument contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment for

The Plaintiff is not the instant house, but the cement brickd house, and ② the instant house is a lease contract with the Defendant.

참조조문

-민사집행법 제44조 제2항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.01.22 2018가단74751

-대구지방법원 2015.08.21 2013가단36627

-수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016고정2085

-서울행정법원 2013. 10. 30. 선고 2013구단4449 판결

-대법원 1990. 1. 12. 선고 88다카28518 판결