beta
Text
1. The defendant shall list the attached list based on the original copy of the ruling of recommending reconciliation with the District Court 2006Na689 in force against C.
Reasons
1. The facts based on which the Defendant’s seizure of corporeal movables was based on the original copy of a ruling of recommending reconciliation with executive force of 2006Na689, Chuncheon District Court 2006Na686, the Defendant’s seizure of corporeal movables under the attached list (hereinafter “instant movables”) by the original branch court of Chuncheon District Court 2014No. 1026 is either disputed between the parties or may be recognized by the statement of evidence A No. 3.
2. The plaintiff asserted that since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot enforce compulsory execution based on the executive title against C.
3. Determination
A. Of the instant movables, the movables Nos. 2 are owned by the Plaintiff, and the movables Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 among the instant movables were owned by the network D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the facts inherited by the Plaintiff may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the descriptions Nos. 1 and 2.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the movable property indicated in the No. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 among the instant movable property is justifiable.
B. Meanwhile, evidence Nos. 2 does not indicate that the movables Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10 among the movables of this case were owned by the plaintiff or the network D, and even based on the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, the Plaintiff’s purchase of movables Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10 among the movables of this case cannot be directly proven, and otherwise, there is no evidence to prove that the movables Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10 among the movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the movables Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10 among the movables of this case is groundless.
4. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the movables Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 among the instant movables is accepted, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the movables Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.