(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.02.01 2017가단112068

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) 창원지방법원 2018.02.01 2017가단112068

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. An object transferred for security between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and C.

Reasons

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and C drafted a notarial deed (No. 719, 2017, a notary public drafted the original law firm). According to this, the Plaintiff’s lease KRW 5,00,000 to C on January 20, 2017 by the due date specified as of May 19, 2017, and C entered in the separate sheet for the purpose of securing the performance of the said obligation (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) with the content that the said obligation is transferred to the Plaintiff by means of possession revision (hereinafter “instant security agreement”), and the content that the compulsory execution is recognized when C fails to perform its obligation.

B. Meanwhile, based on the original copy of the judgment rendered by the Changwon District Court No. 2015da19561, the Defendant applied for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2017Da1857 of this Court (hereinafter “instant seized objects”) based on the original copy of the judgment rendered by the Changwon District Court No. 2010, Jul. 18, 2017 and seized each of the said movables via the enforcement officer affiliated

C. C did not possess any property other than each of the instant movable property at the time of concluding the instant transfer security agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff lent money to the Plaintiff C and entered into the instant security agreement in lieu of repayment of the said loan. Meanwhile, in relation to the third party, the Plaintiff is entitled to assert and exercise his right to the instant seized property, which is a part of each of the instant movable property, so compulsory execution against the Defendant should be denied. Defendant C bears the Defendant’s obligation, but Defendant C bears the obligation against the Defendant. However, for the purpose of evading the Defendant’s obligation, it should be revoked by fraudulent act as it concluded the instant security agreement with the Plaintiff on each of the instant movable property.

(b) a counterclaim.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.05.17 2015가단7692

-대구지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나6024

-의정부지방법원 2016.02.03 2015가합1274

-대법원 1978. 6. 13. 선고 78다404 판결

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.03.09 2016가단117829