logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가단519608
제3자이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against B is based on the notarial deed with the executory power of 2014No496 of Gwangju-ro law firm.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2014, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) located on three floors among the five-story buildings in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant building”) by a notary public of the Republic of Korea based on the notarial deeds with executory capacity referred to in 2014No496, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-gu, 2014.

B. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff is running a construction business, etc. after completing business registration with the entire building of this case as its place of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff used the entire building of this case as a private house and concluded a legal advice agreement with B for business necessity, and let B use the 3th floor of the building of this case and sell the goods of this case purchased by the Plaintiff as a house owner. In this regard, B did not have any right to the goods of this case. Thus, compulsory execution against the goods of this case under the premise that B is the owner of the goods of this case shall be dismissed.

B. Defendant B operated an office of a similar size in the etel located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City prior to the operation of the office on the third floor of the instant building. The instant goods were used from the above relocation office, and in view of the circumstances in which B independently employed two female employees and operated the law office on the third floor of the instant building, it is clear that the instant goods are owned by B.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements (including paper numbers) and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 5, the Plaintiff monitors from I, who operated H around Apr. 29, 2014 a total of KRW 23,638,00 in total, KRW 5,920,00 in total, KRW 5,920,000 in the air conditioners from Otex Capital Co., Ltd. around May 13, 2014, and around February 2014.

arrow