beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts shall be apparent in the records or significant to this Court:
The Defendant filed an application with the Ulsan District Court C for the determination of the amount of enforcement cost regarding the case of delivery of real estate with Ulsan District Court C, Ulsan District Court 2014No331, and the said court rendered a decision on December 8, 2015 that “The amount of enforcement cost to be repaid by the Plaintiff is KRW 630,200,” which became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in the Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Kaopo442, the Ulsan District Court Decision 2014Da13562, U.S. District Court, and the said court rendered a decision on December 10, 2015 that “The amount of litigation costs to be repaid by the Plaintiff is KRW 513,350,” which became final and conclusive around that time.
C. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of litigation costs related to the instant case, such as Ulsan District Court 2015Kaoga389, Ulsan District Court 2014da1480, Ulsan District Court 2014Na7599, etc., and the said court rendered a decision on December 10, 2015 that “The amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff is liable to reimburse is KRW 1,105,040,” and became final and conclusive around that time.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that deposited KRW 10 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit around March 2016. As such, the Defendant’s U.S. District Court Decision on December 8, 2015, U.S. District Court Decision 2015Kadan442 decided on December 10, 2015, U.S. District Court Decision 2015Kada389 decided on December 10, 2015 (hereinafter “each of the instant decisions”) should be denied compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision on the amount of litigation cost determined on December 10, 2015 (hereinafter “each of the instant decisions”).
B. According to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s claim for a compulsory auction case based on the original copy of the judgment on March 2, 2016, including the name map of building No. 2014Ga1480, Ulsan District Court 2014da1480.