(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.12 2016가단30560

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.12 2016가단30560

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

C is the plaintiff's children.

B. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant execution”) by a notary public against CE on the second floor of the house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G (hereinafter “instant house”) on the basis of the executory exemplification of a notarial deed in the monetary loan agreement No. 106, 2008, which was written by the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication in charge of authentication in the Dhap Office; and (b) executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant execution”).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C reported his domicile to the instant house, which is the Plaintiff’s residence, but actually resides in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu H and 204. On February 18, 2016, when C had been set away on the instant house on the right side of the second floor, C left the instant movable property as owned by C and executed the instant execution.

Therefore, since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the execution of this case by the defendant is not allowed.

B. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff only with the scambl and Gap evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are considered comprehensively considering the overall purport of evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 4 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, namely, C transferred to the instant house on April 9, 2012, Gangnam-gu I, 202 Dong 1002, but later transferred to the instant house on April 4, 2013. At the time of the execution of the instant case, C had no change in the domicile until now. At the time of the execution of the instant case, C used the right side of the second floor of the instant house to the enforcement officer, and at the time of the execution of the instant movable property C at the time of the execution of the instant case.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2016.10.12 2016가단5070

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단33561

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.01 2018가단3055

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018나3404

-인천지방법원 2020.06.10 2019가단20688