beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant's Daegu District Court racing support for the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except that the term “No. 230” of No. 3 of the first instance judgment is deemed as No. 230 of 2017, as stated in Paragraph (3) of the same Article.
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. There is no dispute between the parties that the implementation of the conciliation clause under Article 1(1) of the instant conciliation protocol, which is determined as to Article 1(1), has been completed.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the conciliation clause Paragraph 1 should not be allowed.
(1) The court of first instance held that compulsory execution based on the conciliation clause Nos. 1 and 3 and the portion exceeding the interest rate of 48,00,000 won per annum from June 1, 2016 to the date of full payment. Thus, the conciliation clause No. 1 shall be deemed to be included in the scope of the appellate court’s judgment.
As to the plaintiff's assertion that the obligation under Article 3 (3) has been extinguished due to the repayment deposit under the deposit of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the obligation under Article 3 (3) of the conciliation protocol against the defendant was extinguished due to the repayment deposit under the deposit of this case, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).
1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant under Article 3(3) of the conciliation protocol of this case had been extinguished by offsetting the Plaintiff’s obligation under Article 3(3) of the conciliation protocol of this case. 2) According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the following facts may be acknowledged.
① On November 18, 2014, D loaned KRW 100,000,00 to the Defendant as of December 30, 2014.
② On July 8, 2016, D transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, who was delegated with D’s authority to notify the assignment of claims, notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on or before December 13, 2016.