(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.24 2016가단228719

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.24 2016가단228719

제3자이의

Text

1. The defendant's execution of the case in Suwon District Court 2008 Down 6724 (main office) and 2008ddan 9150 (Counterclaim) against C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. D and 302 of the third floor in the Sungnam City, based on the executory exemplification of the conciliation protocol (Counterclaim) in the Suwon District Court Branch of Sungnam Branch of 2008 Ddan6724 (principal suit) and 2008 Ddan9150 (Counterclaim).

B. At the time of the seizure, the enforcement officer had two witnesses participate in the execution at the time of the seizure, and had two keys open to door by failing to meet C or his family or cohabitant at the execution place. The enforcement officer conducted the seizure following the attachment.

C. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with C, and lived together with C on September 6, 2013, E, and 101, and from August 2014, the Plaintiff resided with C at the enforcement place.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 or Gap's evidence 4, and purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the instant corporeal movables were purchased by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the Defendant’s executive title against C is unreasonable.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the corporeal movables in this case are common properties of both spouses, and that the defendant may seize them.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Gap evidence Nos. 12, it is reasonable to deem that all of the instant corporeal movables were owned by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff purchased TV from his own money to the plaintiff on September 2013, and the mother purchased TV from the plaintiff and donated it to the plaintiff on or around September 2013. On June 25, 2015, the plaintiff can be recognized the fact that the plaintiff subscribed to the SPS insurance with the SS insurance and received the Schi cooling as the stolen goods. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant corporeal movables were owned by the plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.06.28 2016가단22027

-대전지방법원 2015.08.26 2015가단11820

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.04.29 2015가단34108

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.09 2018가단9530

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.03 2017가단15682