beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2015 Chicago135, Jan. 2016
Reasons
1. The facts based on the judgment of this court No. 2013Gapo2764 against Nonparty C, which was based on the following facts: (a) on December 17, 2015, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables under this Court No. 2015No. 2244 (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) with respect to the instant movable property in the Jeonsi-gu D apartment 608 Dong-dong 1001 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Jeonsi-gu, Jeonju-si, the domicile of the above C on December 17, 2015 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), did not conflict between the parties; or (b) was recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the items
2. The plaintiff asserts that the apartment of this case is the real estate leased by the plaintiff, and the non-party C is merely the sub-lessee who sub-leased one room from the plaintiff, and the movable of this case also belongs to the plaintiff, so the execution of the seizure of this case should not be allowed.
Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff only with the descriptions of Gap's 3, 5, 7-1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
Rather, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries and the purport of the entire argument as to No. 4, namely, Nonparty E and F, other than Nonparty C, also reside in the apartment of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, the lessee of the apartment of this case, did not submit specific evidence that the Plaintiff did not reside in the apartment of this case, and that the Plaintiff was receiving a rent (50,000 won per month) under a lease agreement between Nonparty C, which was concluded between Nonparty and Nonparty C, the movable property of this case is not owned by the Plaintiff, but a movable owned by Nonparty C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the premise that the said movable is owned by the Plaintiff is ultimately groundless.
3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.