제3자이의
1. The Defendant’s motion to the Daejeon Family Court of the Daejeon Family Court for Nonparty C for damages (de facto damage) No. 2013Dhap5026.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 6 through 8 and the purport of all pleadings.
On May 16, 1995, the Plaintiff married with C and divorced on November 21, 2008, and married again on March 29, 2013. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased Samsung N&T computers, and on March 1, 2013, purchased each bed against each other. On March 28, 2013, on March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was a director of Jung-gu Seoul Central Government, D, 701 Dong 902 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). The instant apartment of this article was fluor, television, air-conditioning, computer, fluor, air-conditioning, air-conditioning, cooling, air-conditioning, air-conditioning, air-conditioning, air-conditioning, air-conditioning, kimchi, and e-mail.
B. However, around June 2013, C moved to the apartment of this case.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant received a decision in lieu of conciliation in the Daejeon Family Court case No. 2013Dhap50026, which filed against C, and based on the original copy of the above decision, executed the seizure of corporeal movables on June 26, 2014 from the instant apartment as indicated in the Attachment List No. 2014, No. 2794 (hereinafter “instant object”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a motion to suspend compulsory execution against the instant goods with this Court No. 2014Kag1197, and this Court decided to suspend compulsory execution against the instant goods on July 31, 2014.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, it can be found that the plaintiff purchased Samsung N&T computers and betboards among the goods of this case, which were punished before living together with C, and the director of the apartment of this case as the apartment of this case, and included them in this article while using the remaining goods except Samsung N&T computers and betboards, and according to the facts of the above recognition, it can be known that the plaintiff directly purchased the goods of this case. Thus, all of the goods of this case are owned by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of compulsory execution against the defendant as to the goods of this case is justified.
3. Conclusion.