(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.04.29 2015가단17499

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) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.04.29 2015가단17499

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the building of this case owned B on February 21, 200, the Plaintiff received the provisional attachment order by KRW 23,061,550, the Plaintiff’s creditor’s “the provisional attachment order,” and completed the provisional attachment registration as to the building of this case on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as "the provisional seizure registration of this case". (b)

Then, on November 16, 200, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B and C on the merits of the provisional seizure of this case with the Seoul District Court Decision 2000Ka200832, and received a judgment from the above court on November 16, 200 that “B and C shall pay to each Plaintiff 23,061,550 won with 5% per annum from December 15, 199 to August 16, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of this case, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of real estate on the building of this case to Suwon District Court Sejong District Court D, and on August 3, 2015, the provisional attachment of this case was executed as the principal attachment from the above court on August 3, 2015.

In this case

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from B on March 27, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 10, 2012 due to the sale on March 27, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant judgment has expired ten years after the date when the statute of limitations became final and conclusive, compulsory execution of the instant case based on the claim extinguished by the statute of limitations should be denied. This is also the same even if the provisional attachment registration of the instant building was completed.

B. Defendant’s assertion

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가합63964

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.10.30 2015가단2190

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.16 2016가단5003075

-수원지방법원평택지원 2012.06.08 2011가단16658