logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나48119
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant, based on the notarial deeds with executory power of No. 1478 of 2012 prepared by us against B, seized corporeal movables listed in the attached sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”) in the apartment located in B’s domicile on January 28, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as "the execution of this case"). (b)

The plaintiff and B are married couple on November 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant movable property asserted by the Plaintiff is a mixed movable property that the Plaintiff could have been married with B, and is owned by the Plaintiff.

The compulsory execution of this case against the property not owned B is illegal and unfair, so it shall be dismissed.

3. The records of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the movable property of this case is owned by the Plaintiff’s sole owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The movable of this case is a thing necessary for a family community life by TB, sofaba, laundry, laundry, cooling, wall air conditioners, monitors, monitors, etc. The movable of this case is presumed to be co-owned by the husband and wife (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the movable of this case acquired by the Plaintiff and B for a marital life is presumed to be co-owned.

Ccorporeal movables under a co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse, which are possessed by the debtor or jointly possessed with his spouse, may be seized.

(Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow