제3자이의
1. On March 2020, the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2019 Ghana3198.
1. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of the articles listed in the attached list D in the Chuncheon District Court’s territorial branch D on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2019Gau3198 against C, and the fact that the execution officer of the Chuncheon District Court’s territorial branch attached the real estate listed in the attached list E on March 10, 2020 from Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do Yangyang-do. There is no dispute between the parties.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1 through 4, No. 3, and No. 4, the above place is real estate owned by the plaintiff and registered as a business for accommodation business for the plaintiff; C does not have any personal relation with the plaintiff; and C does not have any relation with the above penta business; and the goods of this case are purchased or leased by the plaintiff for the operation of pentash. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, compulsory execution against the goods of this case is not C but owned by the plaintiff. Thus, compulsory execution against the goods of this case is not permissible as it infringes the plaintiff'
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it is reasonable.