beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court in relation to C, Kimpo-si, 2016Kadan581.
Reasons
1. The facts based on which the Defendant applied for compulsory execution against C by the decision of provisional seizure of corporeal movables (2016Kadan581) from the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court of Branch Kimpo-si (2016Kadan581), against C, and the fact that D, upon delegation by the Defendant, executed provisional seizure on November 10, 2016, with respect to the goods listed in the attached list, was either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by the entry of evidence A No. 1.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Since the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff acquired ownership by acquiring the articles listed in the separate sheet from C, the execution of the provisional attachment of this case must be denied.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 2, 3-1 through 7, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the items listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as of February 27, 2015 to July 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer/acquisition”). The Plaintiff, from February 27, 2015 to July 28, 2016, leased KRW 5.8 million among them, was paid KRW 5.8 million; ② The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the items listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as of August 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer/acquisition”); the Plaintiff transferred the items listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff on the same day; ③ the Plaintiff received the items listed in the separate sheet from February 27, 2015 to the previous corporation C; and the Plaintiff allowed the Plaintiff to use them in the same manner as the Plaintiff.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, even if the Plaintiff was unable to receive the actual delivery of the goods listed in the separate sheet, it shall be deemed that ownership was acquired by being delivered by the method of possession revision. Therefore, the execution of provisional seizure on the goods listed in the separate sheet is illegal as it is against the obligor C’s property
The plaintiff is the owner of the goods listed in the attached list, and the plaintiff is the defendant.