(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.06 2017가단51764

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.06 2017가단51764

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 12, the court below's judgment ordering the transfer of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant pension") against the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), can be acknowledged as being executed after receiving a judgment ordering the transfer of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant pension") (hereinafter "the title of debt in this case"), and there is no counter-proof.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim.

(1) On May 25, 2015, the owners of the instant pension agreed to entrust the instant pension business to the Plaintiff and Nonparty F with the purpose of jointly operating the pension business in the instant resort.

(2) However, it was revealed that the Plaintiff was unable to make a business registration as a credit bad, and between the owner, the Plaintiff, F, and E, the Plaintiff, the F, and E agreed to make a pension business registration in the name of E, and the Plaintiff, F, and E agreed to jointly operate a pension business. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, F, and E jointly occupied the instant pension project.

(3) However, the title of debt in this case is a judgment against E among the type of construction occupant, and is not a judgment against the Plaintiff, and thus, the execution of the title of debt in this case, which is the result of excluding the Plaintiff’s possession, shall be rejected.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is merely an employee of E and merely an employee of E, and that the Plaintiff did not have engaged in the instant pension business or managed the instant penture as an independent entity. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not an independent owner.

3. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is an independent owner

(a)(1) Possession assistants are given instructions from persons who are in command, command, type of relationship or social subordinate relationship, based on household affairs, business and other similar relations.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014고정299

-수원고등법원 2020.11.04 2019나19456

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.05.29 2012고단1957

-서울고등법원 2015.02.06 2014나29751

-의정부지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단114399