beta
Text
1. The Defendant has the executive force of the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009 Ghana68126 Decided December 10, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff B’s children, Plaintiff A, along with D’s wife, and Plaintiff E, 115 Dong 602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) were living in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, E, 115 Dong 602.
B. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against D, executed a seizure of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) in the instant apartment as indicated in the attached sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) by Ji Government District Court Decision 2015No2802, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that each of the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiffs by acquiring ownership from D under the condition that the plaintiffs repay their debts to D's creditors F.
B. In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the court below held that F executed seizure of corporeal movables including each of the instant movable properties located in the apartment of this case on June 20, 2013, as the Seoul Northern District Court Decision No. 2012Gau94576 decided Oct. 16, 2014, the plaintiffs paid KRW 6.3 million to F on Oct. 17, 2014, and paid the above provisional attachment application to F on the same day, and it is reasonable to deem D to have received the above provisional attachment application to have been transferred to F on Oct. 16, 2014, as the plaintiffs paid KRW 6.3 million to F on June 16, 2014, the total amount of the plaintiffs' rights to corporeal movable properties in this case can be deemed to have been transferred to F, and each of the above 3.3 million Won's ownership of each of the instant movable properties.
Therefore, the Defendant’s possession of each of the instant movables owned by the Plaintiffs on May 28, 2015, based on the executive titles of D.