제3자이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2018 Chicago56, Sept. 17, 2018
1. On March 27, 2018, the Defendant executed the seizure of corporeal movables by the Cheongju District Court’s 2018Gau2268 on the basis of the executory exemplification of a decision on performance recommendation for wage cases (No. 2018Gau268) on August 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) as the Cheongju District Court No. 201572 on August 21, 2018.
[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant corporeal movables are objects of a store operated jointly by D and C, and the Plaintiff concluded a transfer security agreement with D with C on May 23, 2018, and received them by means of possession revision. Therefore, the Plaintiff lawfully acquired the transfer security right. 2) Even if not, the instant corporeal movables constitute the Plaintiff’s goods purchased by settling accounts with the Plaintiff’s card.
3) Therefore, the seizure of the instant corporeal movables by the Defendant with the executive title against C is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. (B) In full view of the respective entries and arguments in the following items: (a) the location of the instant corporeal movables is a store operated independently by C, and it can be acknowledged that they are goods necessary for its operation. In light of this, corporeal movables in this case are deemed to have been owned solely by C, barring any special circumstance.
2) However, the written evidence Nos. 1 and 5 alone followed the above determination, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the instant corporeal movables were owned by D or jointly owned by D and C. Thus, even if the Plaintiff received it from D as a collateral for transfer, it is difficult to view that C provided the Plaintiff with a collateral for transfer at the time of May 23, 2018.
The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lawfully acquired the security interest.
b) the Commission;