logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1980. 8. 19. 선고 80다1282 판결
[제3자이의][공1980.10.15.(642),13105]
Main Issues

Whether the execution of attachment against the provisional injunction presumed to be co-ownership by the title of debt against either spouse is legitimate or not.

Summary of Judgment

If it is not clear who is the one of the husband or wife is the one of the husband or wife, the attachment execution against the entire property is unfair because it is presumed to be the one of the husband or wife's co-ownership.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 830(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na307 delivered on April 17, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that there is no dispute between the parties. The defendant executed seizure of the goods listed in the attached list of the judgment of the court below on the basis of the name of the non-party's debt at the time of original sale against the non-party, and the plaintiff and the non-party are married with the plaintiff and the non-party (the plaintiff is her husband). The above goods are not clear whether they belong to the above married couple, and it is presumed to be the public property of the plaintiff and the non-party. Thus, the seizure execution of the whole goods is not done by the method of seizure of the right of share based on the name of the debt against the above non-party who is the co-owner of the above goods, but by the method of seizure of the right of share against the above non-party. Thus, the execution of seizure for the whole goods is unfair and dismissed. Thus, in light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is legitimate, and there is no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the statement of evidence and the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1980.4.17.선고 80나307