beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007Kadan79254 Decided April 29, 2008 with respect to C.
Reasons
1. The articles listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion include the Plaintiff’s owned property, and the articles listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached list are necessary for providing meals to D child care centers (representative C). Thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against C on August 7, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007Da79254 Decided April 29, 2008, should be dismissed.
2. Determination
A. In the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kadan79001 Decided May 27, 201, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part of the attached list Nos. 3 and 4, the goods listed in the attached list Nos. 4 were deemed to be the Plaintiff’s ownership. Around that time, the said judgment became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff purchased the goods listed in the attached list No. 3 on April 9, 2013.
[In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings] According to this, since the articles listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the attached list shall be deemed to be owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's compulsory execution against the articles listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the attached list of the Seoul Western District Court Decision No. 2007Ga79254 decided Apr. 29, 2008, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court Decision No. 2007Ga7925
B. The Plaintiff is also a person who does not own the Plaintiff with the articles listed in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the attached list as part of the attached list Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the circumstance that the articles listed in the attached list Nos. 1 of the attached list are necessary for providing meals to childcare centers does not constitute a ground to oppose the enforcement creditor, and there is no other assertion that the Plaintiff has the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the articles listed in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, and 5.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder is not accepted.