제3자이의
1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the payment order No. 2011 tea 24923 against B by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court).
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 29, 2011, the Defendant applied for a payment order with respect to B as Seoul Central District Court 201j24923, and on April 5, 2011, the Defendant issued a payment order with respect to KRW 8,924,429, and KRW 7,221,904, to the Defendant at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of service of the original payment order, and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The Plaintiff, as the wife B, was living in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul apartment and 103 Dong 1409 apartment. On June 12, 2018, the Defendant attached the movables indicated in the attached list in the said apartment based on the executory exemplification of the payment order on June 12, 2018.
C. However, the movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 are objects owned by the Plaintiff as those purchased or acquired by the Plaintiff.
Specifically, the air conditioners 1, 4, and 6 in the attached list are the goods purchased by the Plaintiff at the D store on July 5, 2017. The TV set forth in the attached list Nos 2 is the goods purchased by the Plaintiff on December 2017. The small wave set forth in the attached list Nos 5 is the goods purchased by the Plaintiff at the E store on July 2017. The 3,8 washing machines set forth in the same list are the goods purchased by the Plaintiff at the E store on July 2017. The Plaintiff was the one acquired from the faculty member of the Co., Ltd. on July 5, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, movable properties listed in the Nos. 1 to 6, and 8 in the separate sheet are those purchased or acquired by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against this part shall be dismissed.
In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the monitoring Nos. 7 and 7 listed in the separate sheet is owned by the Plaintiff purchased by the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.