beta
Text
1. On the basis of the authentic copy of a judgment in the lending case of Suwon District Court 2014Da66501 (No. 28, 2017) by the Defendant, the Suwon District Court 201Gada6501 (No.
Reasons
1. The Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the instant loans in Suwon District Court Decision 2014Ga6501 (No. 66501), seized each of the instant movable property held D, 5 Dong-si, 303, the domicile of the C on November 28, 2017, as the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Da5587 (No. 2017).
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that each of the instant movables owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, a compulsory execution against each of the instant movables based on the enforcement title C ought to be denied.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3, the movables Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 among each of the instant movables are items that the plaintiff entered into an insurance contract and a contract for installment sales with teachers of a stock company. Accordingly, according to these facts, the plaintiff has the right to occupy and use them, i.e., the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of each of the instant movables.
Therefore, compulsory execution against the movables Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the attachment list among the movables in this case is illegal as compulsory execution against movables not owned by C, and thus, it should be rejected.
However, with respect to movables Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9, which are the remaining movables, there is no evidence to acknowledge that this is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the Plaintiff has the right to prevent transfer or delivery of the said movables (the Plaintiff is the owner of C’s property from the preparatory document dated April 26, 2018). The Plaintiff’s claim against this portion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.