The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant filed a lawsuit for the claim for the amount of transfer money in accordance with this court 2015da639328 and received a favorable judgment on April 5, 2015.

On September 8, 2016, in this Court 2016Na58596, in which the Plaintiff filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion, the court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant by October 31, 2016,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant recommendation decision”). However, by compulsory execution based on the above judgment, KRW 930,370,9370, which was prior to the date of recommendation for reconciliation, was transferred to each Defendant on August 5, 2016, and KRW 930,370,000 on September 5, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant transfer”). On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,139,260 (5,000,000-9370,930-9370) and interest KRW 6,162 (3-day payment for KRW 5,00,000) (3-day payment for KRW 5,00,00) after deducting the amount of the instant transfer from the principal of the instant decision to recommend settlement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, and 6 evidence (including branch numbers), each of these statements, significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole argument of the argument of the plaintiff as to the defendant of this case was extinguished due to the transfer of this case and the deposit for repayment.

Judgment

In this case, unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff bears the obligation to the defendant in accordance with the decision of recommending the settlement of this case, and the transfer amount of this case cannot be arbitrarily deducted. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant received the repayment deposit of this case without objection, and it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion solely based on the above facts.

In addition, even if the defendant claimed 49% per annum in excess of the Interest Limitation Act, the payment may not be refused on the ground that the decision of recommending the settlement of this case became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.