(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.22 2019나117017

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 2020.07.22 2019나117017

제3자이의

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the Incheon District Court 2018j. 31739.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, except for the dismissal as follows.

In the 14th judgment of the first instance court, the term "unauthorized representative" is "the representative of the former owner", and the term "illegal possession" in the 15th judgment of the same party shall be read as "Possession", and the term " lawfully" in the 16th judgment of the same party shall be read as "Dao".

During the second 21th 21th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 5th eth 1st e.

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the allegations by the parties are the same as those set forth in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the reasons for dismissal as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Then, following the judgment of the first instance court 3rd 14th 14th , “The plaintiff shall not seek the exclusion of enforcement by asserting that the spouse holds one half of the corporeal movables of this case as a reason for objection, even if he exercises a preferential purchase right pursuant to Article 206(1) of the Civil Execution Act or exercises a demand for payment of the proceeds of sale pursuant to Article 221(1) of the same Act.”

During the 16th 16th 3th 16th e-mail, “the instant corporeal movables” is deemed as “the possession of an I Co., Ltd. and leased by the Plaintiff from the said Company. Of the instant corporeal movables, the remaining corporeal movables among the instant corporeal movables shall be kept in custody,” and even during the same 18th e-mail, “The instant corporeal movables shall be purchased before the Plaintiff lives together with D from the instant house,” and “the instant corporeal movables shall be purchased before they live together with D” in the same 21th e-mail, respectively, and “The execution shall be made only by one half of D out of the instant corporeal movables, even if Article 190 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act is applied or applied by analogy.”

3. Issues and the judgment of this Court are in this part.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-민사집행법 제190조

-민사집행법 제206조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2021.02.10 2019나122279

-대전지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나105984

-대전지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나100767

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.06 2017나39324

-서울고등법원 2019.01.16 2017나2041826