beta
Text
1. The defendant's decision to recommend reconciliation in the case of Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan91717 against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. Plaintiff A leased the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) from Plaintiff B as KRW 70 million and paid KRW 70 million to Plaintiff B the lease deposit. On August 21, 2009, the Defendant received the claim for the return of the lease deposit from Plaintiff A.
B. On April 4, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on the claim for acquisition amount, etc. under this Court Order 2013da91717, and in the above case, “Plaintiff B shall pay the Defendant the remainder after deducting the monthly rent, management fee, etc. incurred in relation to the lease agreement from KRW 70,000 to the date of the above order from the Plaintiff’s order at the same time. If Plaintiff B fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, Plaintiff B shall pay the Defendant the above amount and its interest, plus damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the date following the date of the above order from the date of the above order to the date of full payment (hereinafter referred to as “decision on recommending settlement”). Plaintiff B was issued a recommendation for settlement (hereinafter referred to as “decision on recommending settlement of this case”).
C. After that, the Defendant’s spouse transferred KRW 70 million to the Defendant’s account on October 27, 2014 on behalf of the Plaintiff B, which was defective in seeking to enforce a compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s building name in accordance with the instant recommendation for reconciliation. At the time of the said transfer, the Plaintiff’s spouse at the time of the transfer, indicated “B (Return of Deposit for Lease on Deposit)” to the Defendant’s passbook.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the obligation under the decision of recommendation for reconciliation of this case against the defendant of the plaintiff Eul was extinguished by the plaintiff's spouse on behalf of the plaintiff Eul to pay the defendant KRW 70 million as set forth in the decision of recommendation for reconciliation of this case.
As such, the defendant is the defendant.