(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.23 2017재가단52

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.23 2017재가단52

대여금

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. The Seoul Central District Court 2016Ma70674 case that the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant and the appointed party for the confirmation of the quasi-deliberation mediation protocol was submitted to the conciliation (2016 Ma19455). On August 19, 2016, the following mediation was concluded between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the appointed party, and it is evident that the protocol was prepared on the record.

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). 1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2016, on condition that KRW 20,000,000 shall be paid until December 31, 2016, and KRW 30,000,000 shall be paid until June 30, 2017.

Provided, That where the above amount is not paid by the payment date, 15% interest per annum shall be paid with respect to the unpaid amount from the date following the payment date to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the designated person and the remaining claims against the defendant shall be waived.

3. The costs of lawsuit and mediation shall be borne by each person;

2. Judgment on the grounds for quasi-examination

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant delegated by the Plaintiff during the conciliation procedure in which the instant conciliation protocol was prepared.

Of the 120,00,000,000 won claimed by the Plaintiff in the above conciliation procedure, there was no agreement to waive the claim against the designated parties. Thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the instant petition for retrial should be accepted.

B. As to the existence of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol, if the protocol is written on the date of conciliation as to whether there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the said protocol, the said protocol has the same effect as the judicial compromise. Such conciliation is established by the litigation to terminate the dispute through mutual concession between the parties, as in the same way as the judicial compromise, and thus,

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제6호

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.07.09 2014재가단73

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.30 2019재머15

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.03.15 2017재가단25

-창원지방법원 2016.04.19 2015나10213

-의정부지방법원 2014.11.14 2013나6279