beta
Text
1. The Daejeon District Court 2018Gadan205978 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff has an executory power over the instant case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From August 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Ga205978 (Delivery) with the Plaintiff Company C (representative D) and the Defendant of the Mediation Intervenor on August 16, 2018, the conciliation was concluded with the effect that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall pay the Defendant the balance of the lease deposit (=20 million won - the lease deposit - the sum of overdue rent of KRW 18 million) and ② the amount of KRW 17.5 million monthly rent of the Inspection Officer, and ③ the consolation money of KRW 29 million shall be paid by December 31, 2018, and, in the event of delay, the damages for delay shall be paid by adding the amount calculated at a rate of 15 percent per annum.”
B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 21 million, excluding KRW 31 million out of the balance of the same day rental deposit and KRW 29 million, to each Defendant’s deposit account from the head of the Tong in the head of the Tong in the position of the Director of the Inspection Hall, the amount of KRW 17.5 million, excluding KRW 10 million out of the total amount of KRW 31 million, to each Defendant’s deposit account.
C. On March 29, 2019, on the ground that the Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant received a collection order against the Plaintiff’s G Bank and H Bank deposit claims based on an executory protocol of mediation as to the Plaintiff’s claim, Daejeon District Court 2019TB863.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff has been entrusted with the management of building Nos. 3, and Eul concluded a lease contract on behalf of the plaintiff, and made efforts to reach an agreement with the defendant to additionally pay consolation money to the defendant by acquiring the plaintiff in the above lawsuit. On August 16, 2018, Daejeon District Court Decision No. 16:00, as well as the legal representatives of the plaintiff and C (Representative D) who are the party at the conciliation date, and the defendant attended as the conciliation intervenor, and the defendant conciliation.