beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Kahap5634 Decided December 17, 2015 with respect to B.
Reasons
The Defendant applied for compulsory execution against B against movable property under the Incheon District Court’s 2014Gahap5634 Decided December 17, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Gahap5634, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution against B. Upon the said application, the enforcement officer of the Incheon District Court’s Dacheon-gu Seoul District Court’s Da, 402 Dong-dong 1008 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution officer”) did not conflict between the parties.
The plaintiff asserts that the articles listed in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11, among the articles listed in the attached list, are the property purchased by the plaintiff, so the compulsory execution of this case must be dismissed unfairly.
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff may recognize the purchase of each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 4 on July 11, 2009, the items listed in No. 1 on November 11, 2012, and the items listed in No. 2 on Nov. 30, 2013.
According to the above facts, since each of the items listed in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, and 4 among the items listed in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case shall be dismissed unfairly.
However, with respect to each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 11, the Plaintiff’s purchase on July 14, 2012 is not a complex, but an excessive amount, and with respect to the items traded with the NH card on December 5, 2014, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased them by only the items listed in the evidence No. 2-3 and the evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for each of the above items is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.