beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 29, 2013, the fact that the Defendant made a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet D, 107 Dong-dong 403 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, where ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the Plaintiff based on the authentic copy of the judgment in the case No. 2013867 against the Plaintiff, which is the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of each of the entries in the evidence No. 1, 7, and No. 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all of the arguments.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the corporeal movables of this case were purchased by the Plaintiff at his own expense and owned the apartment of this case. However, on November 29, 2013, on the execution date of the seizure of this case, the execution date of the seizure of this case is unjust since C, the Plaintiff’s fraud, was his spouse, E, his father, and was staying in the apartment of this case, who was temporarily a captain, and returned to Germany, and was staying in the apartment of this case.
B. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the instant corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff, in other words, the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of demurrer by the third party.
However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and Nos. 8 through 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to No. 1, the instant apartment is owned by the Plaintiff, but there is no argument that the instant apartment was recorded or registered at the Plaintiff’s address among the documents submitted in the instant lawsuit, and that the Plaintiff had a resident registration in the instant apartment.