beta
Text
1. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant’s Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Na7966 (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court”) against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 23, 2009, the Defendant leased from the Plaintiff the Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) Dalet E (hereinafter “instant building”) of the Plaintiff’s Dolet as KRW 13,000,000.
B. However, as the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit despite the expiration of the lease contract term, the Defendant was rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming the lease deposit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016 Ghana41.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul Northern District Court 2016Na7966, and around August 16, 2017, “A” from the above court.
The plaintiff shall pay 13,00,000 won to the defendant by September 30, 2017.
B. The Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2017.
(c)the above obligations are simultaneously fulfilled.
"A decision to recommend reconciliation" was confirmed at that time by the decision to recommend reconciliation.
hereinafter referred to as "decision of recommending reconciliation of this case"
(C) Following the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant building, etc. to F of the Seoul Northern District Court. The Defendant paid a total of KRW 1,422,200 (1,200,000,000,000,000 registration license tax of KRW 31,20,000,000,000) with the execution expenses (6,000,000,000 registration license tax of KRW 31,20,000). D. On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff with the Defendant as deposit, as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 200,000,000,000 and KRW 13,260,000,000 for lease deposit under the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case and KRW 1,30,000,000 for the execution expenses, and there was no ground to dispute over the entire enforcement expenses as the Seoul Northern District Court’s additional No. 237126,0,17,20.
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since all obligations based on the decision of recommendation for reconciliation of this case were extinguished due to the plaintiff's repayment deposit, this case's settlement of this case.