제3자이의
1. Based on the authentic copy of the judgment with executive force of 2013Kadan13806 against Gwangju District Court, the Defendant attached January 5, 2018.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 29, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim for damages against C with the Gwangju District Court 2013Kadan13806, and rendered a judgment on May 29, 2013 that “C shall pay 34,000,000 won and damages for delay to the Defendant,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive.
B. On December 1, 2017, the Defendant conducted a seizure and auction of corporeal movables as the Gwangju District Court 2017No. 3132, with respect to the articles listed in the separate sheet No. 109, Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Gwangju, the Plaintiff’s residence, which is the mother of C and C based on the above final judgment.
E purchased 600,000 won in a lump sum the items listed in the attached list in the above procedure.
C. On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, the mother of C, purchased the goods listed in the attached list from E in KRW 707,00, and kept them inside the residential area.
However, on January 5, 2018, the Defendant again conducted a seizure and auction of gold corporeal movables as the Gwangju District Court 2017No4972 on the attached list.
(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the items listed in the attached list are deemed to be owned by the plaintiff and to be possessed by the plaintiff. The execution of this case is unfair because it is based on the original judgment rendered by the defendant C, and thus, it shall be dismissed.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 707,00 to E, and that the goods listed in the attached list cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership because it was true C’s money. However, even if C paid the purchase price of the goods listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, its mother, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the goods listed in the attached list, and the Defendant’
The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.