beta
Text
1. On the basis of the original judgment with executory power of Seoul Southern District Court 2018JJ 129502 against E, the Defendant is based on August 23, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) executed a seizure of the instant corporeal movables in the Plaintiff’s residence on the ground that the authentic copy of the executory payment order issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Hu129502, against E, was an executory title.
(Korean District Court 2018No2632, hereinafter referred to as the “instant compulsory execution”). (b)
The plaintiff is residing together with E's Sychro with E.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that since the corporeal movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case based on the payment order against E shall not be permitted.
B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in the event that the third party has ownership or right to block transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, and that the third party raises an objection to compulsory execution that infringes on the subject matter, and the burden of proving that the subject matter of enforcement is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to block transfer of the subject matter to the plaintiff is the plaintiff.
In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8, namely, the number of 1 (3-TV 43) from among the corporeal movables of this case purchased as a mobile phone composite product by the Plaintiff, the number No. 2 (3rdamno) is the product produced in 3SU-18P which was 80s and appears to have been purchased by the Plaintiff on or before April 28, 2004, which is the marriage date of E and the Plaintiff’s children, and No. 7 (Earbacon) is the product produced on March 201 and deemed to have been purchased by the Plaintiff on or before the marriage of the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the movables No. 1, 2, and 7 are the product owned by the Plaintiff or purchased on the Plaintiff’s account.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining corporeal movables were purchased on the plaintiff's account.