beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Each movable property indicated in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “corporeal movable property of this case”) is owned by the Plaintiff, not C, as it is owned by the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B, a notary public, based on the deed of promissory notes No. 98, 2012, which was executed by the notary public, on the copy of the Seoul Western District Court Decision No. 2009Kadan62526, Jun. 7, 2016, the compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movable property should be dismissed.
2. Determination
A. In the case where a third party has the right to prevent ownership or transfer of, or transfer of, the subject matter of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection to a compulsory execution that infringes on it. The burden of proving that the subject matter of execution is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent transfer or transfer of, or transfer of, the subject matter of execution is the cause of objection.
B. In light of the above legal principles, a person himself stated in the Health Team, the certificate of origin submitted by the Plaintiff (A 3), the air carrier (A 4), the consignment certificate of the Plaintiff’s holding the Plaintiff’s own self-owned body, etc. (A 5), the self-owned list (A 8), the Plaintiff’s import of his own self-owned body through his country’s resources, the certificate of import declaration (A 15 and 16), and the certificate of confirmation (A 19) that the Plaintiff had kept his own self-owned body in the Samercar office (A 19), etc., and there is no ground to view that the corporeal body of this case is identical to the corporeal movable property of this case. The other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the corporeal movable property of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.