제3자이의
1. The Defendant’s execution of the loan case No. 2017j99 against Nonparty C at the Changwon District Court Jincheon-si Court of Jincheon-si.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 15, 2017, the Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff’s mother C with the Changwon District Court Jincheon District Court Decision 2017Ra9, the Defendant received the payment order with the purport that “C shall pay to the Defendant 2,500,000 won and the amount equivalent to 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the above payment order was finalized as it is.
B. The Defendant applied for the seizure of corporeal movables on the basis of the original copy of the above payment order, and the execution officer affiliated with the branch court of the Changwon District Court was the execution officer of seizure of corporeal movables on April 18, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant movables is owned by the plaintiff, it is improper to enforce compulsory execution based on the decision against C with respect to the said movables.
B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in the event that the third party has the ownership or the right to block transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, and that the third party has the right to object of enforcement, namely, the ground for objection that the subject matter of enforcement is owned by the plaintiff or the right to block transfer or transfer of the subject matter to the plaintiff. The burden of proving that the subject matter of enforcement is the plaintiff
In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, since movable property Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the attached attachment list is recognized as movable property owned by the plaintiff purchased by the plaintiff, a compulsory execution against the above movable property by the defendant based on the original copy of the judgment against Eul should be dismissed.
However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is up to the movabless set forth in the attachment Nos. 1 and 5 in the attachment list.