logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.07.19 2015가단89812
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground of the grounds of the reasons for filing the instant claim. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2015 against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kahap1032, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit on the confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the compensation for damages.

B. Around August 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending, a settlement agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the following content (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

CD CD A

C. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant withdrawn the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2015 Ma11032, and the lawsuit for damages, filed against the Plaintiff pursuant to the content of the instant agreement.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that although the agreement of this case was prepared, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim on the ground of the annexed cause of claim.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the arguments in this case, i.e., the settlement contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is concluded in accordance with the agreement of this case, i.e., (i) the effect of confirming legal relations and the creation effect of the settlement contract; (ii) the Defendant has withdrawn the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Gohap1032, which has the nature of the counterclaim against the instant lawsuit, and (iii) the period of implementation of the obligation imposed on the Plaintiff is reasonable. In light of the above, Article 10 (10) of the agreement of this case is interpreted as having set the time for performance of the obligation imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground of the reasons for the attached claim.

arrow