(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.02.01 2017가단1861

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) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.02.01 2017가단1861

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Western District Court No. 2015da42787 against the Ecco Commission (hereinafter “Ecco Commission”). On December 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment that “The Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4.4 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 23, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

B. The Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables on the basis of the original copy of the above judgment, and the enforcement officer of this court rendered a seizure enforcement of the attached list from 552 of the Sil-ri, Sil-ri, Sil-ri, 52, which is the domicile of the Eurco New System (hereinafter “instant seizure”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant seized objects from the Eco Commission at KRW 26 million; and (b) carried out part of them; and (c) stored the instant seized objects at the domicile of the Eco Commission.

Therefore, since the seized article of this case is owned by the plaintiff, it is unreasonable for the defendant to enforce compulsory execution against the seized article based on the original copy of the above judgment against the Commission.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, the fact that the plaintiff asserts that he/she has ownership and other rights to prevent the transfer or delivery of the objects of execution should prove that he/she has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery

However, the plaintiff only attached a sales contract to the complaint No. 2, but did not perform any verification activities, such as the date of pleading and the date of mediation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원논산지원 2017.07.06 2017가단325

-의정부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014고정826

-광주지방법원 2015.06.24 2015가단11347

-서울중앙지법 2007. 7. 25. 선고 2006가합52285 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.22 2019노1045