beta
Text
1. The payment order with executory power over the case of the purchase price of goods at the Incheon District Court 2020 tea 477 against C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant received the payment order against C to pay the principal amount of KRW 10,765,90 in the case of the claim for the purchase of goods at the Incheon District Court 2020 tea47,000 and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
B. On July 16, 2020, the Defendant, based on the instant payment order, delegated the enforcement officer with respect to the seizure of corporeal movables Diplomatics in Seoul Southern District Court Diplomatics, and seized the items indicated in the list of attached objects.
C. Of the articles listed in the list of attached articles, the Nos. 4, 5, 5, 2012, was acquired by the Plaintiff on December 10, 2012, and July 14, 2019, and the No. 2 cleaning machine was acquired by E on July 20, 2017, and donated to the Plaintiff. The No. 3 television was 50, June 30, 2016, and Nos. 6, 5, acquired by F on July 14, 2019, and donated to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, each movable property listed in the list of attached articles Nos. 2 through 6 shall be deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff as the property acquired or donated by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution shall be dismissed.
Although the Plaintiff asserts that the air conditioners listed in Nos. 1 and 7 of the attached list Nos. 1 and 7 are donated from G to the Plaintiff as a daily gift around September 2016, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s donation of the company’s property to an individual’s daily gift is merely an assertion of the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to believe that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the foregoing assertion.
3. As such, 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.