제3자이의
1. The Defendant has the power to execute the case No. 2014 tea 1211, which is located in the case of Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch of the Gwangju District Court.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to B, July 30, 2009, KRW 10 million, and KRW 10 million on October 8, 2009.
B. B, on September 2, 2014, upon the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the said money, prepared a C fishing place transfer contract with the content that transferred the C fishing place including corporeal movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the Plaintiff at KRW 10 million, and the transfer price was to be substituted by part of the said loan.
C. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of the instant goods based on the executory payment order of the case No. 2014j11 with the Gwangju District Court 2014Da1211, in relation to B, and on September 2, 2016, the execution officer of the Gwangju District Court Macheon Branch Office seized the instant goods (hereinafter “instant seizure”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, witness B's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, since the ownership of the instant goods at the time of the seizure of the instant goods was not B but the Plaintiff, the Defendant is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution against the instant goods based on the original copy of the payment order against B.
Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the C fishing place transfer agreement between B and the Plaintiff is a false transfer for the purpose of evading compulsory execution. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant is mainly related to the circumstance that B attempted to evade compulsory execution in collusion with a third party other than the Plaintiff, and it is not directly related to the transfer contract between B and B.
The defendant's assertion is not accepted because there is no other evidence to admit it.
Rather, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, i.e., the Plaintiff’s actual KRW 20 million before the seizure of this case.