logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.28 2018가단5116456
제3자이의
Text

1. On the basis of the authentic copy of a judgment with force of 2010da345116 rendered by the Seoul Central District Court against C, May 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 26, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming damages against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2010Da345116, and rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,000,000 and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 11, 2010 to the date of complete payment.”

B. On May 23, 2018, the Defendant entrusted enforcement officers with the execution of the above judgment to the Seoul Central District Court D, and executed a seizure of corporeal movables on the movables indicated in the attached list of the provisional arrest warrant (hereinafter “instant movables”) in the building and F (hereinafter “instant house”) in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-gu building and F (hereinafter “instant house”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff transferred the instant house from G to reside therein, and since the instant movable is a household for which the plaintiff purchased it, it is unreasonable for the defendant to seize the instant movable based on the above judgment against C, and the defendant actually resides in the instant house.

2. We agree with the Majority Opinion that it is difficult to view the instant movable property as holding.

B. According to the following facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was actually residing in the instant house at the time of the said compulsory execution, and the household tools located therein are owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the above compulsory execution against the movable property of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, based on the original copy of the above judgment against C, is unlawful as it is a compulsory execution against the article not owned by the debtor.

G, as of February 3, 2018, as of February 3, 2018, leased the instant housing from H, the purchaser of the instant housing, KRW 254,00,000, and the period from April 14, 2018 to April 14, 2020. The Plaintiff on March 16, 2018.

arrow