beta
Text
1. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Court of Jeju District Court of Law No. 2014Hu537, the Court of Law No. 2010, Jun. 2, 2014
Reasons
1. On June 2, 2014, the fact that the Defendant seized corporeal movables on the movables indicated in the attachment list as the Chuncheon District Court No. 2014No. 5377 based on the payment order issued by the Chuncheon District Court Decision No. 2014No. 2014, May 2, 2014 is no dispute between the parties.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, among movables listed in the attached attachment list, the attached list movables (hereinafter “instant movables”) are owned by the Plaintiff.
B. (1) Determination (1) The ground for objection by a third party is not limited to ownership, but to be sufficient if it is a right to prevent transfer or transfer of an object of execution. In the event that the subject matter of execution does not belong to the ownership of the execution obligor, a third party who has a claim to return the object to the execution obligor under a contractual relationship between the execution obligor and the execution obligor has a right to prevent transfer or transfer by execution. Thus, the claim for objection by claim can also be the ground for objection by a third party.
(2) On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to purchase KRW 500,000 of the instant movable property with C. Around June 13, 2003 (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16576, Jun. 13, 2003). The Plaintiff paid the instant movable property No. 1 through D as the price for the instant movable property No. 1 among the instant movable property. According to the above facts of recognition, since the instant movable property No. 1 among the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.
(3) In light of the following circumstances solely based on the list No. 2 and the list No. 4 among the instant movable property, the No. 2 is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant movable property was owned by the Plaintiff. On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, but rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the instant movable property, which can be known through the aforementioned macroscopic evidence.