beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s execution of the case No. 2013 tea 2392 against the Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court, YMC Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract with the Namyang-SC Co., Ltd. with respect to each of the shooting machines listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the shooting machines of this case”). Since the Southyang-MC Co. did not pay the purchase price, the above sales contract was cancelled, each of the shooting machines of this case is owned by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the instant withdrawals on June 5, 2015 by the Defendant based on an executory payment order of the case No. 2013 tea 2392 rendered by the Suwon District Court, Osan-si, 2013.
2. In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and Gap evidence Nos. 19 through 24 (including various numbers), the plaintiff entered into a sales contract on April 3, 2013 with the Namyang F&C Co., Ltd. in an amount equivalent to KRW 34,00,000 for each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the plaintiff, and delivered the of each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the plaintiff to the factory buildings owned by the Namyang F&M Co., Ltd. located in 40-48, the remaining M&C Co., Ltd., which did not pay the purchase price up to the specified period.
As to this, the defendant alleged that the above agreement between the plaintiff and Namyang F&C corporation constitutes a false conspiracy, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
The Defendant’s seizure of each of the instant resignations on June 5, 2015 on the basis of an executory payment order of the case No. 2013 tea 2392 rendered by the Suwon District Court, Osan-si, 2013, the Suwon District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”), as seen earlier, does not conflict between the parties.