(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.11.27 2019가단8094

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.11.27 2019가단8094

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant, on July 1, 2019, rendered a provisional disposition execution (hereinafter “execution of this case”) on the instant real estate on July 1, 2019 by a provisional disposition order with the executory power in the case of a provisional disposition that is prohibited from the transfer of possession by the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office 2019Kadan10764, against C does not conflict with

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the execution of the instant case should be denied on the ground that the Plaintiff is the possessor who leased the instant building from C as the cause of the instant claim.

3. As to the judgment on the main defense of safety, since the execution of this case was terminated, the defendant filed a lawsuit by a third party's objection on the ground of possessory right, and the execution of provisional injunction against transfer of possession is excluded, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit, so long as the execution is not carried out by the delivery order, the third party's possessory right, in a case where a provisional injunction against transfer of possession is taken by mistake that the debtor possesses the goods possessed by the third party, unless it is executed by the delivery order.

As such, the defendant's defense is not accepted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4287Da138, Feb. 17, 1955).

4. Each description and image of evidence Nos. 2 and 8 submitted by the Plaintiff are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is acknowledged as having comprehensively considered the overall purport of pleading Nos. 2, 3 and 4; (b) the Plaintiff is engaged in a licensed real estate agent business between Nonparty D and his husband; and (c) D was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate on behalf of Nonparty D on behalf of Nonparty C; (d) at the time the Defendant was aware that the instant real estate was asserting a lien on the instant real estate; (b) the Plaintiff and D jointly concluded a lease agreement stating that the instant real estate is leased from Section C; and (c) the objective evidence that the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 50 million to

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나19404

-대전지방법원 2019.03.21 2018가단21675

-인천지방법원 2015.08.26 2015가단206651

-서울고등법원 2016.10.21 2016나2025261

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.11.03 2016가단109576