beta
Text
1. The original copy of a decision on performance recommendation with executory power of Seoul Eastern District Court 2009 Ghana 116920 against D.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against D with the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2009 Ghana116920, and the above court decided that D shall pay the Plaintiff (the Defendant in this case) KRW 1,824,220 and damages for delay from August 28, 2009. The above decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on January 28, 2010.
B. On April 5, 2018, the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the decision on performance recommendation as above, executed compulsory execution against the movables listed in the attached list, E apartment in Pakistan and 1103 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant execution place”).
[Reasons for Recognition] In full view of the following circumstances: (a) without dispute; (b) the entry of Gap evidence No. 1; and (c) the determination of the grounds for a claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings; (d) the above-mentioned facts and the evidence attached thereto; and (e) the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through No. 7 (including partial No. 7); and (c) the facts that the movables owned by the plaintiffs are not owned D; and (e) the defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the above decision on performance recommendation against D, shall be denied compulsory execution against each of the aforementioned movables on April 5, 2018.
In light of the following circumstances, the attached list Nos. 1 and 2 appears to be owned by the Plaintiff A.
- Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit against F by asserting that “kimchi air conditioners” and “franchis conditioners” in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G apartment 303 were owned by himself/herself, and the said court accepted Plaintiff A’s assertion on September 13, 2010 and rendered a judgment denying compulsory execution against each of the said movables, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 1, 2010.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment”). - Furthermore, Plaintiff B, D, and H had directors at the domicile of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around April 201 as the instant execution place.