logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.11.10 2016가단4322
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 1 as a whole, it is recognized that the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against B by the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Kadan200648, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against B by a ruling of provisional seizure of corporeal movables, and that the enforcement officer C, who was delegated by the Defendant, issued a provisional seizure on March 18, 2016, issued a provisional seizure of movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the article of this case is the plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the articles subject to attachment execution are the plaintiff's ownership, i.e., the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, i.e., the plaintiff's burden of proving that the articles subject to attachment execution are the plaintiff's ownership. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4 through 10 (including each number) submitted by the plaintiff, i.e., the grounds for the acquisition of the plaintiff's articles of this case, i.e., the changes in the plaintiff's assertion about the process of acquiring the articles of this case, and their contents are contradictory to each other. The plaintiff's representative D has close relations, such as having served as the inside director of the corporation B, and the movable property sales contract (Evidence No. 7) submitted by the plaintiff as evidence is not the plaintiff's representative but only written in the name of the plaintiff's personal D, and there

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow