beta
Text
1. The Defendant is based on an executory deed No. 1017, 2016, issued by a notary public D office against C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On September 1, 2016, Busan Central District Court 2016Hu227522 rendered compulsory execution against C on September 1, 2016 (No. 2016No. 2154) on the basis of the executory payment order exemplification No. 2016, the Defendant: (a) on September 28, 2016, based on an executory notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”); and (b) on September 28, 2016, based on an executory notarial deed No. 2017, Oct. 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”); and (c) on the basis of an executory notarial deed No. 2016, Jun. 1, 2016 (hereinafter “the combination of each movable property listed in attached Tables 1 and 2 List”).
(B) Additional attachment was made on October 18, 2016 (No. 2016No. 2362). (b) On the other hand, this Court accepted the Plaintiff’s application in the instant case of suspending compulsory execution on October 18, 2016, and rendered a decision to order the suspension of compulsory execution on the attached list No. 1 until the rendering of the instant judgment. On October 28, 2016, this Court accepted the Plaintiff’s application and rendered a decision to order the suspension of compulsory execution on the attached list No. 2 until the rendering of the instant judgment. (3) On October 28, 2016, this Court accepted the Plaintiff’s application and rendered a decision to order the suspension of compulsory execution on the attached list No. 5 until the rendering of the instant judgment.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's remaining movables except for gas distress among each of the movables of this case attached by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the auction property of this case") are transferred from E to C and lent to C. The plaintiff purchased and lent to C. Thus, on the premise that each of the movables of this case is owned by C, the defendant's compulsory execution against each of the movables of this case shall not be permitted.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 7, E shall be the Busan District Court in 2014.