beta
Text
The defendant's notary public against C is based on the authentic copy of notarial deed 2011No.832, a national of law firm.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, based on the facts, received a ruling of seizure of corporeal movables by the Seoul Northern District Court 2013No. 2674 as the title of execution from a notary public prepared on a claim of KRW 17 million against D, the wife of which is KRW 201,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, from Seoul Northern District Court 201Du832, and the fact that seizure was executed on May 22, 2
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. Since the failures listed in the Plaintiff’s Schedule are the goods owned by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff leased to D, compulsory execution against the failures is not allowed.
B. On August 12, 2008, Defendant D transferred the authority to all machinery and facilities, including licensing, in the instant plant, including the instant plant. At the time of the execution of the seizure of the instant plant, D was at the site, and there was no indication that the said omitted was leased, and the rent and the lease period was set in blank on September 9, 2013, which was presented by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, but the rent and the lease period was set in blank. However, the lease custody certificate submitted as evidence after the instant lawsuit was filed was written after the rent and the lease period were stated after the fact that the rent and the lease period were stated after the attachment, and it is difficult to understand that it was additionally leased the following two times even after the attachment. The assertion that the ownership was made after April 11, 2014, the attachment list No. 5, model X E216-4, among the attached list No. 5, does not coincide with this Opinion.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Evidence Nos. 3, 8, 9 through 20 (including paper numbers), and Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7, the ownership relationship of the three sub-phishing as indicated in the Disposition, namely, ① the Plaintiff has engaged in the sub-phishing business from May 30, 1984 to E, ② the Plaintiff has engaged in the sub-phishing business, ② the list No. 5 of the annexed sheet No. 21, Feb. 21, 2011 from G managing F.