logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2021.01.08 2019가단19964
제3자 이의의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s claim against C based on the payment order (2850) No. 2019, the Jeonju District Court 2019, as indicated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. On June 3, 2019, based on the former Jeju District Court Order No. 2019, 2019, the fact that the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) to transfer the provisional seizure of the claim 20193 from the former District Court to the seizure of the provisional seizure of the claim 33993, as to the leased claim for the return of the lease deposit or the claim for the return of the lease deposit of the apartment in the attached Form No. 2850 against the Plaintiff’s spouse C (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from the former District Court Order No. 2019, the parties do not dispute or is significant in this court.

2. A lawsuit of demurrer against the third party regarding the plaintiff's claim applies to the execution of all property rights. Thus, in case where there has been a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, if the third party, other than the execution obligor, was physically disabled due to the seizure, etc. in the exercise of his own claim as the genuine creditor, the claim belongs to himself and may bring a lawsuit of demurrer against the execution obligee by asserting that the claim belongs to himself (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da4401 delivered on August 26, 1997, etc.). The presumption of special apartment property shall be presumed to be its own property before marriage and the property acquired in one's name during marriage, and the property acquired in one's own name during marriage shall be presumed to be its own property, and the cooperation of the other party was made in acquiring the property during marriage, or there was an offer under the provisions of Articles in the marriage life, and the presumption of special apartment property shall be deemed to be owned by the other party or co-owned by both parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da17819 delivered on December 197, 197, 197, 197, 197).

arrow