logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.01.18 2017가단9585
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On October 13, 2017, this Court has regard to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution of 2017 Chicago50

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a married couple relationship with C.

B. On September 26, 2017, the Defendant seized C’s corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on September 26, 2017, using the title of execution as the executory exemplification of the determination of litigation costs with the executory power of the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Ka-95, the Defendant attached C’s corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). 【Ground for recognition of this case’s ground for non-existence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, and purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables were purchased by the Plaintiff and owned by the Plaintiff, and the instant compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables not owned by C shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

B. 1) In light of the above legal principles, corporeal movables in this case, which are possessed by the debtor and his spouse as co-ownership, or which are possessed by the debtor or jointly with the spouse, are presumed to have been maintained until now in the marriage. The corporeal movables in this case are deemed to have been acquired in order to lead a marital life, as laundry and vegetable tools provided by the married couple’s daily life (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). However, in light of the above, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the corporeal movables in this case are owned solely by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that the corporeal movables in this case are possessed by the plaintiff. (Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act)

3. Conclusion.

arrow