(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단47347

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단47347

제3자이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s execution of the conciliation protocol against the Company B is the Macheon-si District Court 2013 Ghana, 15748.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff leased three floors of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground buildings with a deposit of 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the period from June 3, 2014 to June 2, 2015. The Plaintiff occupied and operated a manufacturing business around that time.

B. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant seized movable property in the attached list (hereinafter “instant attached property”) located on the third floor of the said building based on the executory exemplification of the conciliation protocol by the Macheon-si District Court Decision 2013Gaso15748 (hereinafter “Secheon-si”) against B (hereinafter “Secheon-si”) located in Macheon-si, Macheon-si.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff occupies the seized article of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the owner is the owner (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and compulsory execution against the seizure of this case conducted by the defendant based on the executive title against the non-party company shall be dismissed as against the property owned by the plaintiff.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff and the non-party company are practically the same company and abuse the company system, and there is no evidence to acknowledge compulsory execution against the seized property of this case. In addition, even if the plaintiff and the non-party company are practically the same company, it is not allowed to extend the scope of res judicata effect and executory power of the judgment against the specific company to other companies subject to the denial of legal personality in the litigation procedure and compulsory execution procedure emphasizing the clarity and stability of the procedure in order to ensure the public authority in relation to legal relationship, its prompt and clear realization (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da4531, May 12, 1995). The defendant's above assertion is therefore without merit.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-민법 제197조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 1995. 5. 12. 선고 93다44531 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.10.16 2014가단45786

-수원지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단68583

-인천지방법원 2016.03.30 2015가단65553

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.04.16 2015가단135

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단19545