제3자이의
1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.
2. A notary public against C by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff is the same law firm.
1. We examine, ex officio, whether the counterclaim in this case is legitimate or not.
A counterclaim may be filed with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending before the closure of pleadings (Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the principal lawsuit was closed on August 28, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) received the instant counterclaim on October 12, 2015, thereafter is apparent in the record. Thus, the instant counterclaim is unlawful as it did not satisfy the requirements for counterclaim under the Civil Procedure Act.
Any rejection shall be made without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on March 10, 2014, lent KRW 70 million to the Defendant with interest at KRW 500,000 per month.
B. The defendant could not pay interest on the above loan.
On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to recover the instant corporeal movables from the Defendant’s payment of the corporeal movables listed in the attached attachment list (D) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) as a substitute for the said loan (hereinafter “instant payment contract”), and that the Defendant leased the instant corporeal movables from the Plaintiff at KRW 500,000 per month during the lease period of the said cosmetic; however, if the Defendant did not pay the above fees more than five times, the Plaintiff may recover the instant corporeal movables.
C. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) had a title based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 484, 2014 against C; (b) applied for a compulsory execution against C’s movable property based on the said authentic deed; and (c) on September 19, 2014, the instant court’s seizure and enforcement of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).
The Plaintiff asserted that the instant corporeal movables attached by the Defendant are owned by the Plaintiff, not C, and filed an application for suspension of compulsory execution with this Court No. 2014Kaba129, and this Court on September 29, 2014.