(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.11.15 2019가단5118

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 2019.11.15 2019가단5118

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a child between E and C, and is residing in the apartment complex located in Kimpo-si with E and C.

B. The Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the promissory note No. 2016No. 953 against E (Law Firm LLC) and the promissory note No. 3 (Law Firm F 2017No. 92) against C, executed the seizure execution of the attached corporeal movables located in the said apartment (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) as the court G and H on April 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the corporeal movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the defendant's above corporeal movables shall not be allowed.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that Eul prepared a sales contract to sell the instant corporeal movables to the plaintiff on January 4, 2017 at the auction (debtor C) of the J C C C C movables at the same court on January 4, 2017.

However, in light of the fact that at the time of the Plaintiff was living together with E and C, and that there was no evidence to support that the Plaintiff raised funds for the purchase of the said corporeal movables with its own funds, C and E actually purchased the said corporeal movables from C and E I: Provided, That it is only deemed that a sales contract was prepared in the name of the Plaintiff, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is the owner of the said corporeal movables, and there is no other evidence to support this.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that he/she received a lump sum allowance for six months at a company operated by the father E, and thereafter received income from the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of part-time part-time part-time part-time

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.04.08 2014나17206

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.10.27 2017가단7896

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.06.18 2018가단5718

-수원지방법원 2018.09.12 2017나19279

-전주지방법원 2018.12.14 2018가단19738