제3자이의
1. The Defendant’s enforcement force against Nonparty C of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da6693 Decided December 24, 2013.
1. On December 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da6693 Decided December 24, 2013, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the Attachment List (hereinafter “instant movables”) in the attached Table D, which was in Jinjin-si, on May 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant movables”).
(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 150,00,000 to C, and then acquired the right to collateral security from C on August 31, 2002, which was the transfer of the compulsory execution of this case, by means of the possession revision. Thus, the defendant's compulsory execution against the movables of this case is unlawful.
B. Defendant’s assertion (1) on December 9, 1997, the Plaintiff was granted the right to collateral security (200,000,000 won with respect to Eriri-si land owned by C, and C, with respect to the land located within the said land, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was apportioned the full maximum debt amount of 200,000,000 won with respect to the voluntary auction procedure conducted with respect to a part of the said land.
② In addition, with respect to the remaining land for which the discretionary auction procedure has not run as above, F, a person holding a provisional registration, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage, and was awarded a favorable judgment on July 20, 207.
③ In addition, the Plaintiff did not additionally create a right to collateral security with respect to the said real estate until February 25, 2004, for which F had completed the said provisional registration.
④ On the other hand, on December 30, 2003, C prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for security by means of transfer to the Defendant, which provides the Defendant with a right of transfer to security by means of an occupancy amendment.
⑤ In addition, around 2009, C moved the instant movable property to the land owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.
6. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff was in a difficult situation.