1. The defendant's branch court of Suwon District Court 2016Kadan10737 against the plaintiff and the case of land transfer.

Facts of recognition

On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and plastic houses, housing units, KRW 15 million per annum, KRW 5 million per annum (payment date September 22 of each year), and the lease period of KRW 4 years.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract on the ground that the lease contract was unpaid, and then filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the withdrawal of the building and the claim for the delivery of the land with Suwon District Court 2016dan10737.

On April 17, 2017, an adjustment was concluded on April 17, 2017, stating that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant real estate and its ground buildings from the Defendant to September 22, 2017, and at the same time pay KRW 5 million to the Defendant the deposit money.”

(A) On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5 million in the future to the Defendant.

On September 29, 2017, according to the instant protocol of conciliation, the Defendant was forced to commence compulsory auction as Suwon District Court Branch C with respect to the instant real estate on September 29, 2017.

As of November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution (this Court 2017 Chicago43 case), and this Court decided to suspend compulsory execution of the instant real estate based on the instant protocol of mediation until the pronouncement of the instant judgment was made.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff sought to pay the Defendant the remaining deposit amount of KRW 5 million under the instant protocol, but the Defendant refused to pay it. On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5 million in the Defendant’s future deposit.

Since the Plaintiff’s obligation to return deposit under the instant protocol ceases to exist due to the above deposit, compulsory execution under the said protocol shall be denied.

The defendant is on the real estate of this case by September 22, 2017.