(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.16 2015가단21260

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.16 2015가단21260

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received a successful bid for corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) owned by Nonparty C in the auction procedure for corporeal movables (No. 2013No. 2010) from Daejeon District Court; and (b) sold the instant movable property to C by means of an ownership reservation secondary sale; (c) subsequently, the Plaintiff rescinded the sales contract for the ownership reservation portion between C and C on the grounds that C did not pay the purchase price.

B. On the other hand, on February 19, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 180,00,000 to the Defendant by May 13, 2013 as the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2012No. 153, Feb. 19, 2013, and “C” and “C shall pay the above amount to the Defendant by May 13, 2013, but if the above amount is not paid by the above date, the registration of the branch court of the Daejeon District Court’s Da, E, F land and buildings thereon (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) shall be completed with respect to the registration of the transfer of ownership based on the registration of the transfer of ownership, and the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership based on the registration of the Daejeon District Court, which was completed as of December 13, 2012, upon C’s default on the above debt, C received the transfer of ownership due to compulsory execution and ownership transfer of the instant movable property.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant movable property against the Defendant by the court No. 2014da16018, and received a favorable judgment on December 19, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The plaintiff tried to execute the above judgment against the defendant on February 10, 2015, but it was impossible to execute the judgment on the ground that the non-party G, who is not the defendant, was different in the possession of the object of execution in the possession of the movable property of this case.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul 1, 1.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.10.28 2020가단9049

-대전지방법원공주지원 2020.11.26 2020가단949

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.11.15 2016가단103503

-대법원 1993. 12. 14. 선고 93다16802 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가단8626