제3자이의
1. The original copy of the decision on performance recommendation with executory power of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016 Ghana572469 against B.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7-1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, based on the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation as to Eul, Seoul Western District Court on September 7, 2016, the defendant filed an application for attachment of movables on the attached list No. 2 (2017No. 111), based on the executory order of the Daejeon District Court on September 7, 2016, for attachment of movables on the attached list No. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7-1, 3 and 4, 200. However, on May 23, 2017, the execution officer of the above court applied for attachment of each of the items listed in the attached list No. 6 (3: 10K: 10K: 200 on the attached list No. 16710 on the attached list No. 27106 (hereinafter referred to be 206). 16).
According to the above facts, the part concerning the laundry of this case among the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted as being executed against the movable property owned by the plaintiff, not B. Thus, the plaintiff's claim concerning the laundry of this case is justified.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution of this case should not be denied since all the articles listed in the attached list, other than the instant laundry season, are owned by the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the articles listed in the attached list, including evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7-2, 3, and 8, is a movable property owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription of the claim under the defendant's decision on performance recommendation against B has expired.