beta
Text
1. The Defendant is based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Suwon District Court Branch 2018Gauri 19326 against C, which is the executory exemplification of the judgment of Suwon District Court 2019.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the facts of recognition, the Defendant may recognize the attachment of corporeal movables in the attached list No. 1 of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment and G, in which C is residing as E on July 2, 2019, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Suwon District Court 2018Gau19326, Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court 2016.
2. Among the corporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the remaining articles except for the No. 4 Pano is not owned by the debtor C, but owned by the Plaintiff A, and the Pano is owned by the Plaintiff B. Therefore, compulsory execution against corporeal movables listed in the attached list should be denied.
3. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the debtor C is his/her father and wife, and from 2001, he/she had been living in his/her house with the plaintiff B, who was his/her father and wife, and the records in Eul evidence Nos. 1TV and 3 fish containers purchased by the plaintiff A can be recognized as being the goods purchased by the plaintiff, and the above recognition is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.
Therefore, compulsory execution against the above corporeal movables based on the above judgment against the defendant C should be denied.
However, there is no evidence that the corporeal movables Nos. 2, 5, and 8 of the attached list Nos. 2, 5, and 8 are owned by the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff A's assertion that the above articles are owned
B. The entry of No. 2 (Delivery Request List) alone is insufficient to recognize that the No. 4 Pano No. 5 of the attached list was owned by the Plaintiff B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
4. Conclusion, Plaintiff A’s claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. Plaintiff B’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.