제3자이의
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants asserted that, on April 28, 2012, E, the Defendants’ children, committed a provisional seizure of corporeal movables by the Gwangju District Court No. 2012Kahap795 with the right to claim damages against D as a preserved right. On June 29, 2012, the said court rendered a ruling on the provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant ruling”).
B. On July 10, 2012, an enforcement officer delegated by the Defendants issued a provisional attachment enforcement officer with respect to each of the objects listed in the separate sheet in the above gameland, which is the execution place of the instant decision.
[Reasons for Recognition - Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 4 and 5, Purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion, “17 game machine (17)” (hereinafter “the instant game machine”) among the corporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion is leased without compensation to D from October 15, 2010 by H, which is prior to the enforcement date of the instant decision, and thus, the execution of provisional seizure should be denied, given that the Plaintiff purchased from H on July 4, 2012, which was purchased from H and owned by the Plaintiff.
B. We first examine whether the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant game machine since the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant game machine.
Under the current Civil Act that adopts the form principle in the change of real rights, registration of real estate and delivery of movable property is required for movable property, and even if the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the game machine of this case and paid the price thereof in full, the Plaintiff purchased the game machine of this case to install “Gcheon-ho,” which it operates, even if the Plaintiff did not receive the game machine of this case. The game machine of this case is operated by D even until now.