유체동산인도
1. Defendant D’s month from Defendant B to the delivery date of each movable set forth in the separate sheet from December 21, 2014.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7, 10, 11, and 14:
The Plaintiff was the owner of the building, which is the second floor neighborhood living facilities in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the E ground (hereinafter “instant building”). Defendant B and C acquired the ownership by fully paying the sale price on September 26, 2012 after receiving the successful bid for the instant building, which was commenced on December 7, 2010.
B. From November 2007, the Plaintiff operated the furniture at H or Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G or Gangdong-gu I with the trade name “G”, and the instant building was used as a restaurant leased by J from November 2007 to J (K).
C. The Plaintiff was filed a building delivery lawsuit with respect to the first household store in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government due to the rent of office, etc., and upon the consent of the J from March 2012, the Plaintiff purchased each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant household”) as a household product while running the household store in the instant building from March 2012, and stored in the said building.
In the auction procedure of the above real estate, J did not deliver the building of this case by asserting a lien equivalent to KRW 550,000,000,000, based on the structural construction cost, etc., Defendant B and C filed an application for a real estate delivery order (this court L) with the Plaintiff and J, and filed a lawsuit against J for a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (this court 2012Dadan52448). On October 31, 2012, Defendant B and C filed an application for provisional attachment (this court 2012Kadan6914) against part of the household of this case as the claim for return of the above unjust enrichment, and received a decision for provisional attachment of corporeal movables from this court.
The execution of corporeal movables provisional seizure against some of the households of this case, and the plaintiff is an employee instead of claiming a direct right on the grounds that there is a concern about the compulsory execution by other creditors.