beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Da43129 Decided December 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 13, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of lease deposit against the Plaintiff by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Gaso43129, and sentenced the Plaintiff to “the Defendant shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the instant judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. According to the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate property for the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E- 116.4 square meters and its ground buildings on January 9, 2017 with the Seoul Dong District Court D, and the compulsory auction was commenced on January 9, 2017, and the enforcement was suspended as of January 2.
C. On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) sought reimbursement of the instant judgment amount to the Defendant under the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 20,000,000 won as the deposit account for the Defendant’s refusal to receive the instant judgment amount; (b) on April 11, 2017, the Defendant reserved an objection and paid the said deposit in full.
In addition, on May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the instant judgment amounting to KRW 20,00,000 and KRW 22,632,260,00 for the execution cost of the said compulsory auction and KRW 22,632,260 for the said compulsory auction and notified the Defendant to pay and receive KRW 22,632,260 for the said postal items, and the said postal items were delivered to the Defendant on May 19, 2017, but the Defendant refused to receive the said items were deposited for compulsory auction (execution cost of the instant case) on May 26, 2017, by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2022,632,260 for the said KRW 22,632,260 for the deposit that the Defendant reserved and paid for the Defendant’s objection.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including each number in the case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. There is no de facto dispute between the parties with respect to the facts that the Defendant spent in the above compulsory execution procedure to determine the cause of the claim was 2,632,260.