beta
Text
1. Attached to B by the original judgment with executory power of Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan121024 against B.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, with Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan121024, and the said court rendered a judgment on July 10, 2015, that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 37,690,997 won and 21,850,00 won among them, 18% per annum from December 19, 2014 to June 13, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”).” The said judgment was finalized on July 25, 2015.
B. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant seized the authentic copy of the instant judgment, with the title of execution, the Suwon District Court Branch No. 2018Du44, each movable property indicated in the separate sheet No. 304, Dongcheon apartment, 304, Dong 1104, Dong 1104 (hereinafter “each movable property of this case”) and TV (xembent bus, 1st, 100,000), and the air container (mark, 1st, 200,000).
C. Each of the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff purchased by the Plaintiff.
[Evidence Evidence: Written Evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, compulsory execution against each of the movables of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, based on the original copy of the judgment of this case against the debtor B, is illegal as compulsory execution against articles not owned by the debtor, and thus, it shall be dismissed.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's compulsory execution against each of the above movables is legitimate since each of the above movables is co-owned property of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as the spouse B of the debtor B.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant movables is owned by the Plaintiff and B, and rather, it is recognized that it is owned by the Plaintiff based on the above recognized facts and recognized evidence, so the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim can be accepted, so it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.