beta
Text
1. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant’s District Court of Jyang-si, the Namyang-si Court of 2012Gau-si, the 20120 wage case against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of wages and concluded conciliation with the same content as the conciliation protocol in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) on March 7, 2013, in this Court’s wage case 2012 Ghana52920.
(B) It was indicated on the basis of the plaintiff and the defendant in this case.
The Plaintiff withdrawn the order of seizure and collection as well as the above order of seizure and collection, because the dividend based on the order of seizure and collection could not be long, in Suwon District Court KRW 2011 other bonds 8961.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant and the remainder of KRW 5,000,000 were paid to the Plaintiff based on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2013TTTT 2013TT 21258 and collection order, and the Plaintiff paid dividends from the third obligor Hyundai Construction Company, including interest, and if the dividends are not paid, the Defendant gave up the said KRW 5,00,000.
B) Since the Plaintiff did not receive the dividend based on the above attachment and collection order, the obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant by the above agreement has ceased to exist. Accordingly, compulsory execution based on the instant conciliation protocol ought to be denied. (ii) The Defendant asserted that there was a KRW 5,00,000 from the Plaintiff around January 10, 2014, but did not state the agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on January 10, 2014, and that “if the Plaintiff is unable to receive dividends based on the claim seizure and collection order, the Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT 21258, the Defendant gave up receiving the remainder of KRW 5,00,000,000,” and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.