beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s original decision on the amount of litigation cost with executory power under the Patent Court Decision 2015Kaba478 against Nonparty C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff leased D apartment 109 Dong 201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to KRW 5,00,000, and used it as a residential area.
B. On June 26, 2014, Nonparty C, the Plaintiff, together with his family, filed a move-in report on the instant apartment, and resided in the instant apartment along with the Plaintiff. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables with the Jeonju District Court 2012No2320, the former District Court 201, which issued a final decision on the amount of litigation costs (hereinafter “the final decision on the amount of litigation costs”). On December 15, 2015, the enforcement officer seized movable property listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “the instant movable property”) on the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant seizure”).
C. At the time of the seizure of this case, the above C was not in the apartment of this case, and there was E, its wife, but did not sign the attachment report.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading
2. In light of the above facts, the plaintiff, after renting the apartment of this case, appears to have lived alone with the above C's family members, and at least, the movable of this case is presumed to be the plaintiff's sole or joint possession with the plaintiff, under the plaintiff's possession or joint possession with the plaintiff, C, etc. Thus, in this case where there is no specific evidence to deem that the movable of this case is the plaintiff's sole ownership with the reversal of the above presumption power, the seizure of this case against the non-party C with the defendant's title as the execution title for the determination of the amount of litigation costs of this case against the non-party C is conducted against the plaintiff's joint ownership, and such compulsory execution should be denied.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.