beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s enforcement of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 Ghana47312 Decided January 26, 2018 against Nonparty B.
Reasons
1. Since each of the items listed in the separate sheet in the summary of the cause of the plaintiff's claim is owned by the plaintiff, not by the non-party B, the compulsory execution against each item listed in the separate sheet shall be denied based on the executory exemplification of the judgment against B.
2. In the case where a third party has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection against a compulsory execution that infringes on the subject matter, and the burden of proving that the subject matter of execution is owned by the Plaintiff or has the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter to the Plaintiff.
Although there is no dispute between the parties as to this case, the fact that the items listed in the attached list No. 1 are the Plaintiff’s ownership, and furthermore, as to the fact that the remaining items are the Plaintiff’s ownership, it is difficult to believe that the entries of No. 4 in the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5 through No. 7 are not sufficient to recognize it by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 8-2 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff resided in Newannam-gun C and transferred it to Dong 306, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, and Dong 306 on September 4, 2014. In light of the above facts of recognition, there is no question as to whether the previous slips, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, purchased from around September 2009 to around 2010, submitted by the Incheon located store and submitted by the Plaintiff, etc. as to each item listed in the separate sheet.
Therefore, since the articles listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached list are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the above articles by the defendant shall not be permitted, but the plaintiff's claim against each other shall not be justified.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition.