beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on November 30, 2017, filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables and compulsory auction with the Daejeon District Court 2017Du4074 regarding the instant goods with the execution title of the judgment stated in the purport of the claim against the non-party company (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”).
At the time, the above execution place is the location of the headquarters of the non-party company, the name of the entrance signboard and staff, and the trade name indicated on one ton truck was the non-party company. The trade name in the transaction list in the book office of the execution place was stated as “D”, and the representative was written as the personal business registration as the plaintiff, but the above business registration address was the "E and the first floor", which is the building adjacent to the execution place.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination on the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) around 2015, the Plaintiff’s mother borrowed a total of KRW 800 million from F, and (b) around June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred building materials, etc. possessed by Nonparty Company to the Plaintiff on or around December 2016. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who was the representative, started business with the trade name “D” and entered into a lease agreement of KRW 5 million and monthly rent of KRW 800,000 on December 13, 2016 with respect to the first floor of the Dong-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City; and (c) continues business until now, the instant movable at the execution site is owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant movable based on the final judgment of the instant case ought to be denied.
B. We examine the judgment in light of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 3, and 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff is premised.