beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2016.08.10 2015가단17634

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs leased to E the land for a factory and building on the ground (hereinafter “instant factory”) of the Frannam-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, with the lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,500,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease term of KRW 15,00, July 15, 2015.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the lease contract between the plaintiffs and E, the two headings listed in the separate list are installed inside the factory and two headings listed in the separate list (hereinafter referred to as the "headings of this case") are installed inside the factory of this case. At the time of the termination of the lease contract between the plaintiffs and E, two headings and other facilities inside the factory shall be ordered as they are to the plaintiffs, but four remaining headings inside the factory and the headings of this case agreed to collect and collect E.

C. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) based on an executory exemplification of a notarial deed No. 106, No. 106 of the 2015 No. 2015 No. 306, Sept. 10, 2015, by a notary public against E, seized corporeal movables under this Court No. 201486

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the ground for appeal

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was purchased from E in KRW 128,00,000, and KRW 88,000,000 of the purchase price was offset against the overdue rent to be paid from E, and the remainder KRW 40,000,000 was paid on April 18, 2014 and around the 26th day of the same month.

Therefore, since the cler of this case is owned by the plaintiffs, compulsory execution against the cler of this case must be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party with the burden of proof is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement with respect to compulsory execution that infringes upon a third party’s ownership or right to restrain transfer or delivery of the subject matter of enforcement.

The reason for objection in a lawsuit by a third party, that is, the articles subject to compulsory execution, are owned by the plaintiff or transferred or transferred to the plaintiff.