beta
Text
1. The original copy of the judgment in Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan149725 against Nonparty C is an executory exemplification of the judgment.
Reasons
1. The Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court 2012Ga149725 case against Nonparty C, the father of the Plaintiff, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the attached attachment list on November 17, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that C was the plaintiff's father's bad credit holder due to the bankruptcy of the company operated in Seoul, and then the plaintiff's house was living together with the plaintiff's house upon the plaintiff's recommendation while before the plaintiff's notice source without certain income. Since the items listed in the attached seizure list are all purchased by the plaintiff, the defendant's compulsory execution is unfair. As to the defendant's assertion that C's compulsory execution is unfair, it is against the rule of experience that C did not commission the plaintiff to all the children of Lininna and did not have any age of 60. Thus, the compulsory execution of this case is lawful.
B. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 8, the Plaintiff appears to have had considerable income in operating an educational enterprise from 2010 to 2015, and the Plaintiff purchased a small frequency of attachment Nos. 1,568,000 from Ga Home Shopping on August 17, 2014, after paying the said payment with the Plaintiff’s KB card, and the Plaintiff submitted the sale and certificate of deposit in the name of the Plaintiff for the remainder other than small waves among the items listed in the attached attachment list, it is reasonable to regard the items listed in the attached attachment as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no counter-proof.
Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case, which is based on the enforcement title against C, should be denied as unlawful.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.