제3자이의
1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts: (a) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C and D on the claim for the purchase of goods at the Seoul Southern District Court 2012da88055, which was rendered a favorable judgment; and (b) executed attachment of the goods listed in the attached list in C and D’s residence on October 4, 2016 as executory exemplification.
(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). The plaintiff A is the mother of D, and the plaintiff B is the male partner of D.
[Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Articles indicated in [Attachment 1-4, 6-8] 1-4, and 6-8 are articles owned by the Plaintiff that were purchased by the Plaintiff on December 27, 2012 and leased, possessed, and used to C and D in the auction procedure for corporeal movables against C and D, currently applicable manufacturing industry corporation. 2) Articles listed in [Attachment 5] 5] are articles purchased by the Plaintiff Company B.
B. Determination 1) According to the list Nos. 1 and 6 Nos. 2 and 2 of the attached list Nos. 1 and 6, the goods purchased by the Plaintiff A on December 27, 2012 during the previous corporeal movables auction are “TV 32LC 1, computer (J7L),” whereas the goods listed in the attached list Nos. 1 and 6 cannot be deemed as “TV 32LU 1, computer (BINCH),” and it cannot be deemed as the same goods. Since there is no other evidence to recognize that they are the same goods, this part of the attached list Nos. 2-4, 7, and 8 is without merit. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the goods purchased on December 27, 2012 and the goods purchased on December 27, 2012 between the Plaintiff and A and D, the Plaintiff’s intent to deliver them to the Plaintiff’s household or household goods for free use, it appears that the said goods were supplied to the Plaintiff’s household.