손해배상(기)
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for the procedure of cancellation registration of provisional seizure shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant 3.3.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, at around April 2014, operated a multi-level company that sells a dust and a powder to its members on the trade name “F,” and the Plaintiff was a person who worked from April 2014 to May 2014 as the head of the Cheongju Regional Headquarters of the said company. The Appointor E was a person who was in charge of sales in the Cheongju area with the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Appointor C was a person who invested money to become the head of the Cheongju area with the Plaintiff’s husband. The Appointor C was a person who invested in money to become the head of the team at the above company’s office, and the Appointor D was a person who provided the members with an braille.
B. A dispute over the requirements for the payment of allowances between the Plaintiff, Selected E, and the Defendant occurred on May 2014, and in the process, the Plaintiff was able to cancel and process the sales of the said company’s card, and there was a number of civil criminal lawsuits between the Plaintiff, Appointed E, and the Defendant.
【Reason for Recognition】 Evidence 1-1 to 4, Evidence 2-1 to 6, Evidence 3-1, 2, Evidence 4 through 6, Evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant received a provisional attachment order for the real estate owned by the appointed Party E by the Cheongju District Court 2016Kadan651, despite the absence of preserved claim against the appointed Party E, and sought cancellation of the provisional attachment registration for the said real estate.
As to the legitimacy of the above part of the claim ex officio, the entry and cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure based on the decision of provisional seizure of real estate by the court shall be limited to the execution and cancellation of provisional seizure of real estate, and it shall be limited to the entrustment by the court of execution which made the decision of provisional seizure of real estate. Thus, as the plaintiff of provisional seizure, the above execution court may only entrust the cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure upon receiving the decision of cancellation of provisional seizure upon filing an objection against the provisional seizure with the above execution court