제3자이의
1. The Defendant has the executory power over the case No. 2010 tea 102, the Gwangju District Court's Mayang-si Branch Court of Gwangju District Court for C.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is C's child.
B. Of the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”), the goods listed in No. 1 among the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”) were purchased on June 28, 2014; around November 15, 2013 for the goods listed in No. 2; around November 10, 2013 for the goods listed in No. 4; around November 13, 2013 for the goods listed in No. 5; around February 28, 2017 for the goods listed in No. 6, around February 28, 2017; and around November 10, 2013 for the goods listed in No. 8, either the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, and D donated the goods purchased to the Plaintiff on or around February 2, 2017.
C. Meanwhile, on February 9, 2010, the Defendant filed a payment order against C with the Gwangju District Court 2010 tea102, Gwangju District Court 201, and issued a payment order from the above court. The above payment order was finalized on February 25, 2010.
Based on the executory exemplification of the above payment order, the Defendant applied for the seizure of corporeal movables in relation to the instant goods under the Gwangju District Court’s 2017No376, and the said court executed the seizure on March 14, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, since owners of Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 8 among the goods of this case are the plaintiffs, the above compulsory execution based on the premise that C is its owner cannot be permitted.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the articles Nos. 3 and 7 among the articles of this case are owned by himself.
In the case where a third party has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or delivery of an object of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection against a compulsory execution that infringes on the third party’s ownership or right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of execution. The burden of proving that the ground for objection is that the object of compulsory execution is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of execution to the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is that of the instant article 3.