제3자이의
1. The defendant's decision was rendered in the Incheon District Court's 2013j. 4077.
1. The fact that the Defendant executed a seizure of each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on July 17, 2014 based on the payment order with executory force of 2013rd and 4077 by the Incheon District Court branch of the Incheon District Court branch of MSS Republic Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) may be recognized as either a dispute between the parties or by the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was already closed at the time of the Defendant’s seizure of the instant corporeal movables, and the said corporeal movables are corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff established in the business place operated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant, the creditor of the Mtmarg Co., Ltd., a creditor of Mtmarst, should be denied compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff.
B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is seeking exclusion by asserting the ownership and other rights to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter of execution already commenced, and as such, the right which is the cause of the lawsuit can be set up against the execution obligee. The existence of the right must be proved by the third party who asserts it.
In full view of the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff, the owner of the above saw Machinery (MAXS), can also claim ownership against the Defendant, unless there are special circumstances, since the Plaintiff was found to have paid and purchased the above saw Machinery (MAXS) from February 24, 2014.
Therefore, the execution against the "Ssaw Machinery", which was made on the basis of the executive title of the defendant's MPS Co., Ltd., shall not be maintained as it is because it is unlawful and shall not be permitted.
The Plaintiff asserts that “aerogate” among the instant corporeal movables is also owned by the Plaintiff, but the entry of the evidence No. 3 is the first time by the Plaintiff.