beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff C is an executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 2009.37.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff C executed a seizure of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on July 26, 2013 by means of an executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 2009 Certificate 377.
B. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a decision to suspend compulsory execution with respect to the instant case of the suspension of compulsory execution (No. 2013Kaman493).
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the corporeal movables of this case are proprietary property owned and owned by the plaintiff who was in the plaintiff's company, and therefore, the compulsory execution of this case based on the title of execution against C is unjustifiable. In light of various circumstances, such as the plaintiff's age, career, and the attitude of C, the defendant asserts that the corporeal movables of this case are owned by C who lent the plaintiff's name and operates the factory of this case.
B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 through 6, evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with D on October 28, 2010 with a deposit deposit deposit of KRW 10 million for the land and warehouse building located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant factory”), KRW 10 million per month, and KRW 1 million per month. ② The Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the name of “F” on November 5, 2010 under the Plaintiff’s name with the name of “F,” and registered business registration for manufacturing in the instant factory. ③ The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase KRW 33 million for one machinery among the instant corporeal movables from G on November 18, 2010, and applied for installment loans from the Samsung Card under its own name, ④ the Plaintiff’s loan with the Plaintiff’s principal and interest at the No. 2135, May 21, 201.