Whether only a person who has the ownership of the subject matter of execution may file a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party at the time of seizure.

Where a debtor is not the owner of the subject matter of execution but a true owner "A" at the time of seizure, a person who acquires the ownership from "A" after the seizure may file a lawsuit for objection against a third party on the ground of ownership.

Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant Choi-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 72Na719 delivered on February 8, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) Determination on the first ground of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney;

According to the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence 6 and the testimony of the non-party witness are recognized as the cancellation of the agreement of the contract of this case by putting together the whole purport of the pleading and recognizing the fact that the contract of this case has been rescinded. There is no error cited in

In addition, the original judgment did not err in holding that the content of the rescission of the agreement to the sales contract at the time of original sale includes an expression of intent to return the ownership of the object, and the original judgment that the ownership of the movable property in this case is deemed the Plaintiff as the seller is justifiable.

(2) Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In compulsory execution, if a debtor is not the owner of the subject-matter at the time of seizure, and there is another real owner separately, any person who, after the seizure, has lawfully acquired the ownership of the subject-matter, may bring an action for objection against a third party on the ground of ownership. Therefore, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on a lawsuit for objection against a third party in the original judgment rendered in the same purport. The arguments are

If it is true that this appeal is groundless, it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)