beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s Suwon District Court Branch No. 2014Kadan11897 against the Plaintiff, and the case of land transfer.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 23, 2014, as conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in Suwon District Court Branch 2014Kadan11897, and in India, the conciliation protocol containing the following matters (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was formulated, which was filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.
1. By April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff collects all trees planted in C, the preceding C, 1571 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant and delivers the said land to its original state.
2. The Plaintiff shall pay 3.5 million won to the Defendant by April 30, 2015 and shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum if delay is delayed.
3. If the Plaintiff fails to perform its duty of collection and delivery as stated in paragraph (1) by the due date, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7 million per annum from May 1, 2015 to the due date of payment instead of the “3.5 million and delay damages” as stated in paragraph (2).
4. The defendant waives his remaining claims.
B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff collected trees planted on the instant real estate and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.
C. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,55,616 (=5,616 won = 3.5 million won + 3.5 million won + 3.5 million won x 365 days from May 1, 2015 to May 29, 2015 x 365% x 20%) for the repayment of the obligations under Paragraph (2) of the instant conciliation protocol.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 4-1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s obligation to collect and deliver Paragraph (1) of the instant conciliation protocol by April 30, 2015, and deposit the obligation stipulated in Paragraph (2) of the instant conciliation protocol on May 29, 2015, and thus the claim under the instant conciliation protocol becomes extinct. Therefore, compulsory execution under the instant conciliation protocol is reasonable to be rejected.
3. Conclusion.