logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.24 2019나218371
제3자이의
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is justifiable in its findings of fact and judgment.

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was neglected in the trial, there was no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiffs, even in this Court, are movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

) Although the Plaintiff purchased the property and the third party’s lawsuit is claimed as the Plaintiff’s ownership. However, the third party’s lawsuit is sought to exclude the subject matter of execution by asserting the right to restrain the transfer or delivery of ownership or other subject matter. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, namely, whether the Plaintiff holds ownership or other rights to the subject matter. The Plaintiff asserts that the subject matter of the instant movable is taken over from J on November 22, 2018, among the high pressure control periods, the Plaintiff submitted evidence No. 4, but the above sales contract was made in 2016 and was made in 200 and the date of its preparation is not consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to prove that the electronic tax invoices and remittance details submitted by the Plaintiff were related to the subject matter of execution of the instant movable property, and that the execution officer did not carry out the seizure of the instant movable property at the time of execution of the instant execution.

arrow