beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.11 2016나300825

제3자이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against Nonparty B as the Ulsan District Court 2007 tea7353, and received a payment order on October 25, 2007. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On August 18, 2015, upon the instant payment order, the Defendant executed a seizure execution of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) under the Daegu District Court Branching 2015No504 on the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant objects”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant article is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant compulsory execution ought to be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant B are in a de facto marital relationship, so the compulsory execution of this case is legitimate.

3. Determination

A. Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that corporeal movables jointly owned by the debtor and his/her spouse may be seized pursuant to Article 189 of the same Act when the debtor occupies or jointly possessed with his/her spouse. Such provision also applies by analogy to co-owned corporeal movables jointly owned by the married couple in a de facto marital relationship with which only a marriage report is not filed, while having the substance of community life of the married couple (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997).

In full view of the reasoning of the argument as a whole, the following facts are revealed: (a) Nos. 2, 4, and 8 certificates (the number of pages is included in each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact-finding with respect to the school life insurance company in the first instance court; (b) the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract on December 29, 2010 with the principal insured as B; and (c) automatically transferred the insurance premium from the account under the name of the Plaintiff; and (d) the monthly insurance premium of the two insurance contracts is total 372.