제3자이의
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is that of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added the judgment equivalent to that of paragraph (2) with regard to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the
The gist of the plaintiff's assertion of additional determination is that each of the instant partitioned buildings of this case becomes trust property pursuant to the trust contract of this case (hereinafter "the first assertion") rather than the trust contract of this case, and therefore, even though Article 3 of the former Trust Act does not need to be applied to each of the instant partitioned buildings, the registration under the trust contract of this case was completed and each of the instant partitioned buildings of this case was entrusted to the plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Second Claim”) Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution, which completed the provisional seizure registration on each of the instant sections after the instant trust contract and the registration of trust pursuant thereto, shall be rejected pursuant to Article 21 of the former Trust Act.
[The plaintiff's application for resumption of argument shall not be accepted since it was discussed in the previous argument (which was submitted by the plaintiff as of October 28, 2019, and the preparatory document submitted by the defendant as of October 30, 2019) or it is not appropriate to be cited in this case after the closing of argument in the first instance trial. Considering the following facts and circumstances, the plaintiff's application for resumption of argument may not be recognized by adding the whole purport of argument to each of the statements in Gap, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 6 (including a serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply) as of June 18, 202, and the above reference documents are also discussed in the previous argument (which was submitted by the plaintiff as of October 28, 2019, and the preparatory document submitted by the defendant as of October 30, 2019).
Therefore, the plaintiff's first argument is without merit.
(1)