logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.17 2015재가단33
대여금
Text

1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as to the same content as the claim stated in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Da36546, which was established on November 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) and the content of the conciliation protocol was established on the date of conciliation implemented on November 26, 2015 and entered in the quasi-deliberation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”). It is obvious in the record that the content of the conciliation protocol was written on the date of conciliation implemented on November 26, 2015.

2. Judgment as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination

A. The mediation of this case by the defendant is not by the defendant's truth but by force, but by mistake.

The defendant shall not borrow money from the plaintiff.

The defendant can be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, but there is no further liability.

Since the statutory interest rate is 15% per annum, 20% per annum is unjust.

B. According to Articles 461 and 220 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, quasi-adjudications against a conciliation protocol are allowed only when there exist grounds stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Where a lawsuit for quasi-examination is asserted as a ground for quasi-examination which does not fall under a legitimate ground for quasi-examination, such lawsuit for quasi-examination shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996). It is evident that the Defendant’s assertion does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no other assertion that it constitutes a ground for quasi-examination.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.

arrow