beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. A. Around October 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the refund of the purchase price, etc. under this court’s 2012da47715. As a result, the Defendant, with respect to the instant case, became an executive title based on an executory judgment, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million and KRW 20 million from October 30, 2012 to the date of full payment, KRW 20% per annum from October 30 to the date of full payment, and KRW 10 million, KRW 5% per annum from May 12, 2008 to October 29, 2012; and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant executive title”).
B. On April 25, 2014, the Defendant received from the Seoul Western District Court an order of seizure and collection as to the Plaintiff’s wage claim amounting to KRW 9,206,452 from the Seoul Western District Court to KRW 2014,516, based on the title of execution of the instant case, with respect to the Plaintiff’s wage claim amounting to KRW 9,206,452, and the said order became final
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million to the Defendant on July 9, 2012 as the repayment of the obligation under the instant executive title. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the instant executive title remains only KRW 2,079,511,00,000,000, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 12, 2008 to July 9, 2012. If the Plaintiff paid only the said money to the Defendant, the instant executive title becomes void, and thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant executive title should be denied.
B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on July 9, 2012, as a repayment of the obligation under the instant executive title.
According to Gap evidence No. 3, July 6, 2012, the plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million in gold No. 6211 of this Court, which was held on July 6, 2012. On the other hand, even if based on the above evidence, the above deposit is based on the provisional seizure of real estate at this court, which was applied by the defendant.