beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.01.11 2015가단10274

제3자이의

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Attachment execution;

A. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for provisional attachment with the Daegu District Court racing-Support 2014Kadan1043 for the provisional attachment of various machinery, tools, office supplies, etc., including each machinery listed in attached Tables 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each machinery of this case”, and when a part of them is referred to as “the machinery of this case”, according to the order of the first, 2014), and subsequently executed provisional attachment on the basis of the original copy of the above ruling on the 24th day of the same month.

B. After doing so, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution with the Daegu District Court 2015No. 62 on January 28, 2015 on the basis of the payment order, such as the purchase price of goods No. 2014 tea 1106, the Yangsan District Court 2013, Yangsan District Court 2014, the Defendant enforced the seizure of corporeal movables on each of the instant machinery, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the main points of the plaintiffs' assertion belong to the plaintiff A's ownership, and the machinery of this case belongs to the plaintiff B's ownership. Thus, the above provisional attachment and execution are unjust.

In other words, Plaintiff A agreed to sell and install the instant machinery to Plaintiff A with only receiving the instant machinery No. 1, Plaintiff B, and only the down payment, and agreed to own each of the instant machinery before receiving the payment in full, and did not receive the payment in full. Accordingly, each of the instant machinery is still owned by the Plaintiffs, the seller.

B. In a lawsuit filed by a third party with a mistake in the application of law, the burden of proving that the ownership of an object subject to compulsory execution is the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

Provided, That registration, such as real estate automobiles, shall be made.