beta
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.04.14 2014가단3625

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Cases concerning the suspension of compulsory execution by the Jeonju District Court and the Eup branch court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C for a loan claim under the Jeonju District Court’s Jeonju District Court’s 2012Kadan1540, and the said court rendered a judgment on May 15, 2012 that “D shall pay KRW 32 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”

B. On May 29, 2014, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the above judgment, the Defendant executed the seizure of each item listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each item of this case”) (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff purchased each item of this case from C in the amount of KRW 45 million and paid in full the purchase price and acquired ownership, the execution of the seizure of this case by the defendant should be rejected.

B. Determination 1) A lawsuit filed by a third party is seeking exclusion from the transfer or transfer of the ownership or other subject matter of execution that has already been initiated by asserting the right to block the transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution. As such, the right that is the cause of the lawsuit can be asserted against the execution creditor. As such, a third party cannot be a ground for objection solely on the ground that a third party has a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the execution debtor, and whether to oppose it is determined by the acquisition and execution of the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1223, Jan. 29, 1980). Moreover, as in the case of a change in real right, it is common to determine by the acquisition and execution of the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1223, Jan. 29, 198). In addition, as in the case of a real property under the current civil law adopting the form of transfer of ownership in movable property, a change in ownership takes effect upon delivery of movable property.