(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.09.13 2017가단1436

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) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.09.13 2017가단1436

제3자이의

Text

1. On the anti-doin list Co., Ltd.:

A. The Suwon District Court of Defendant Han-gu Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. The Defendants filed an application for a compulsory sale of corporeal movables listed in [Attachment No. 6] of the attached Table (hereinafter “instant machinery”) based on the executory order of the order of payment as stated in paragraph (1) against the anti-domination of Non-Party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ anti-domination”), and the execution officer affiliated with the court attached the instant machinery to the execution of corporeal movables on October 19, 2016 and January 18, 2017 (hereinafter “each of the instant compulsory execution”). As the execution of corporeal movables on hand, the instant machinery was seized (hereinafter “each of the instant compulsory execution”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s machinery purchased from anti-domination and thereafter leased it again, and its owner is the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the compulsory execution of this case in respect of the property owned by the plaintiff should be denied.

3. It is deemed that the Defendant led to the confession of all the Plaintiff’s assertion in accordance with Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the determination of the claim against the Defendant Han-dong, Inc.

Therefore, the execution against the corporeal movables listed in the Attachment No. 6 of the Attachment List No. 6, 2017, based on the executory payment order in the case of equipment costs for the defendant Han-si District Court 2016 tea 2749, Osan City court 2016.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Korea High Level Co., Ltd.

A. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination are not the owner of the instant machinery, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to prove that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant machinery was the owner of the instant machinery, and the contract for the purchase of the instant machinery from the anti-domination stated in the terms of the relevant lease agreement is null and void as a false declaration of agreement

(b) single-stop stop, Gap 1, 1.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제150조 제3항

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제2호

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단24672

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단37569

-대전지방법원 2017.03.24 2017가단763

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단75204

-춘천지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단51708