logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.08 2018나310307
제3자이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The first instance court’s determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion shall serve a copy of the complaint and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. to the Defendant by public notice, and also serve the original copy of the first instance judgment by public notice is apparent in the record. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unaware of the service of the

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant, on June 20, 2018, was aware that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice after receiving a peremptory notice on the plaintiff's exercise of rights and the application for cancellation of security (Tgu District Court Port Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2018Kadam112). Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion filed on June 26, 2018, which is not more than two weeks thereafter, is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3.

1) On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff sold to the Plaintiff goods owned by C (hereinafter “each of the instant goods”) for the purpose of transfer to security at KRW 30 million,000,000,000, and the ownership thereof is confirmed to be transferred to the Plaintiff. C may use each of the instant goods (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer to security”).

The Plaintiff and C transferred KRW 7,50,000 to C on the same day. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff and C obtained the certification of the instant security transfer agreement by a notary public under No. 845 of Ministry E, etc. (2) Meanwhile, on May 25, 2017, based on the executory declaration of provisional execution rendered by the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Office 2016Kadan1011, the Defendant was based on the executory declaration of provisional execution rendered between the Defendant and C, and, based on the executory declaration of provisional execution, “ below each of the items listed in the attached list in the attached list in the attached list” of the instant movables.

The attachment execution was conducted on the one hand.

3. Each of the instant movables is classified into each of the instant movables listed in the attachment list Nos. 1 through 145, and 151 through 156.

arrow