logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단225199
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The movable property indicated in the Plaintiff’s argument list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movable property”) is owned by the Plaintiff from the Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on April 27, 2015 and November 10, 2015, and is to be kept in the non-party company’s factory (hereinafter “instant execution place”) until the said corporeal movable property is sold to a third party pursuant to the custody agreement with the non-party company. As such, the Defendant’s notary public against the non-party company shall be exempted from compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movable property based on a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 223, 2017 (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

2. In a case where a third party has the right to prevent ownership or transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, the suit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection to the compulsory execution that infringes on it. The burden of proving that the subject matter of execution is owned by the Plaintiff or has the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter to the Plaintiff.

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case’s health stand, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including each number number), each of the following circumstances is insufficient to recognize that the instant corporeal movables are owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① It is difficult to readily conclude that the transaction with the non-party company based on the tax invoice submitted by the Plaintiff was against the instant corporeal movables, and it is unclear whether the Plaintiff acquired ownership by paying the transaction price in full for the said corporeal movables.

② The Plaintiff is a non-party after purchasing around 2015.

arrow