(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.08.08 2017가단7260

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) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.08.08 2017가단7260

제3자이의

Text

1. Based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed No. 2015 No. 1377 of the Djoint Law Office by the Defendant as a notary public against C, November 14, 2017.

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed No. 2015 No. 13777 of the Djoint Law Office, the Defendant seized D&C, including the movable property indicated in the separate sheet No. 1205 Dong Dong-dong No. 1205 (hereinafter “instant movable property”), from the Gwangju District Court Decision No. 2017Da1069 on November 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 2, the Plaintiff purchased and delivered the instant movable property owned C during the compulsory auction procedure for corporeal movables in the Gwangju District Court Decision 2016No. 1120 (No. 2017No. 5) on January 24, 2017.

Thus, since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the execution against the movable property of this case on November 14, 2017 is illegal as it is against the other party's property.

B. The defendant asserts that since the defendant occupied C at the time of seizure of the movable property of this case, the movable property of this case shall be deemed to be owned by C in relation to the third party.

However, the fact that the Plaintiff acquired ownership by purchasing it in the compulsory auction procedure prior to the seizure of the movable property of this case is as seen earlier. At the same time, even if the Plaintiff had C possess the movable property through a separate legal relationship such as lease, it cannot be said that the ownership relationship changes in the relationship with the third party.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in collusion with C, and that the actual owner of the movable property of this case is C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.10.16 2020가단2939

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.08.28 2018가단16815

-서울북부지방법원 2017.08.29 2017가단12070

-부산지방법원 2016.09.28 2016가단42080

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.05.26 2014가단12070