(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.17 2017가단6162

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.17 2017가단6162

제3자이의

Text

1. The defendant's judgment as to B is based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Seoul Central District Court No. 2015 Ghana55.

Reasons

1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:

The Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the instant case No. 2015Gaso555, filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables in Seocheon-si apartment and 5 Dong 607 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (Seoul District Court Decision 2017No973), and on April 21, 2017, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court, who was delegated by the Defendant, executed the seizure of movables in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “instant attachment execution”).

B. B was living together with the Plaintiff, who was his father in the apartment of this case.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on November 11, 2016 with regard to the apartment of this case with D as deposit money of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and continued to reside in the apartment of this case until now. The plaintiff purchased the goods listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8 after the commencement of the plaintiff's residing in the apartment of this case. Each of the goods listed in the separate sheet No. 4 is recognized as a household product or household that is essential for all daily life, and the goods listed in the separate sheet No. 4 are considered as a computer that the plaintiff's mother or the plaintiff's mother long-term.

In full view of the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that all of the goods of this case are owned by the plaintiff.

As such, compulsory execution against the goods of this case based on the original copy of the judgment against the defendant B shall not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.10 2017가단23486

-인천지방법원 2017.07.18 2017가단3887

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단39743

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.09 2016가단3234

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.31 2017가단10833