Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant, upon receipt of a ruling of provisional seizure of corporeal movables (C) No. 2015Kadan34 (hereinafter “the provisional seizure order of this case”), against C, completed provisional seizure against the articles listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) located in the Gangnam-gun E-gun E-Ground (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) owned on February 16, 2015 based on the original copy of the ruling, by the Defendant’s provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “the provisional seizure order of this case”), was either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by the entry of Gap evidence No. 3.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased from F and does not own the Plaintiff’s property, but does not belong to C. Thus, the execution of provisional seizure against the Plaintiff’s property based on the decision of provisional seizure against C should be denied.
3. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of Gap 1, 2, and 5, Gap 6, 9, Eul 1, 2, and 5, and the testimony of Gap 1, 2, and 5 (including the number of branch numbers) and witness F, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, are difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the land price of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.
C’s father network I was engaged in the so-called “dry field-surging” resale business at all South Korea, and after the deceased I died, C appears to have followed the resale business.
In this case, F, the other party to the contract of dry field, which the Plaintiff claimed, seems to have been in transactions with the network I.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that, for about 18 years, he/she was engaged in a distribution business of agricultural dry field, such as Dora, by selling dry field, but it is also between F and F.