제3자이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant entrusted the enforcement officer of Chuncheon District Court's original branch with a compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 2300, 2013 to the non-party C, a notary public against the non-party C, who is a criminal offender, and the said enforcement officer seized the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "instant movable property") on February 4, 2014 (hereinafter "the instant compulsory execution").
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff asserted that the instant movable property was awarded to Suwon District Court in the auction procedure for movable property auction (No. 2012No. 729). As the Defendant transferred the instant movable property to C on or around November 5, 2013 after the said award, the Defendant asserted that the said movable property was no longer owned by the Plaintiff.
B. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff purchased all of the auction objects including the movable property of this case at the leisure court of Suwon District Court of December 14, 2012, in the auction procedure of movable property auction as of December 14, 2012, with the possession of 40,000,000,000 won, and the possession was transferred. On the other hand, compared with Eul evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 6 and the plaintiff's seal affixed on the plaintiff's complaint and each of the preparatory documents submitted in this case, it is difficult to find any difference in the surface, and it is reasonable to view that Eul evidence No. 1 was the plaintiff's seal affixed to Eul evidence No. 1. The authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established. Although the plaintiff asserted that Eul evidence No. 1 was forged with the plaintiff's seal affixed to Eul evidence No. 5,99, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently), the plaintiff's testimony of the defendant No. 301 as of the whole E.