beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On September 26, 2017, based on the original copy of the judgment with executory power of heading 2014da209073 against Suwon District Court, the Defendant issued an attachment execution for the movables indicated in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “instant movables”) located in the Plaintiff church located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu. This court ordered the suspension of compulsory execution against the instant movables by the time the instant judgment is rendered, in the case of the suspension of compulsory execution (No. 2017Kadan102) of this court on January 4, 2018, the fact that the Defendant issued an order to suspend compulsory execution against the instant movables by the time the instant judgment is significant in this court, or that the entries in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings.
Judgment
A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed with respect to the subject matter of execution in a case where the third party has the ownership or the right to block transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, and that the third party raises an objection to the compulsory execution that infringes on the ownership or the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, and the burden of proving that the subject matter of execution is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent
The plaintiff's claim is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the movable of this case was owned by the plaintiff.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, C, as a member of the plaintiff church, resided with his family in the building of the plaintiff church. At the time of the execution of the seizure of the movable property of this case, the movable property of this case was in the company house and the book of family members, and it is recognized that the movable property of this case was the household goods.
The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.