(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.05 2015재가단93

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.05 2015재가단93

집행문부여

Text

1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Formation and conciliation clause;

1. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of agreement on May 9, 2007 with respect to 10,296/12,200 shares out of 122 square meters in Gwangju Northern-gu C, Gwangju Northern-gu.

2. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne respectively;

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, against the Defendant, against the Gwangju District Court Decision 2006Gadan87212, which was the final decision in lieu of the conciliation of the change of registration titleholder 2003Gadan8638 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, to grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff for compulsory execution against the Defendant. In the foregoing case, the Plaintiff asserted ownership of the entire size of 122 square meters in Gwangju Northern-gu C, Seoul, and the Plaintiff’s agent D and the Defendant attended the conciliation on May 9, 2007 and entered in the quasi-examination protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”). The following content is clear in the record:

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant's deception had no intention to mediate, the judge's unlawful mediation was made by deceiving the defendant.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Articles 461 and 220 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, a lawsuit for quasi-examination of a conciliation protocol is permitted only when there exist grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to exist any grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s lawsuit for quasi

3. In conclusion, the quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.23 2017재가단48

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.04 2019재가합10001

-창원지방법원 2015.10.07 2015재가단22

-광주지방법원 2019.6.5. 선고 2018재가단32 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.09.08 2016재나134