logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단2957
제3자이의
Text

1. The defendant's case against the non-party D of April 6, 2009, Busan District Court 2009 Ghana20259.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 4, 2019, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the attached attachment list based on the executory exemplification of the judgment stated in the order against Nonparty D, etc.

B. Meanwhile, the goods indicated in the above list Nos. 4 through 6 (hereinafter “instant goods”) are indicated as the Plaintiff’s credit card, even though around June 11, 2016, the Plaintiff appears to be a laundry (EL) in the attached Form No. 4 of the Yangmun-type coolant (attached No. 4) and the attached Form No. 6 of the laundry (attached Form No. 6). The Plaintiff purchased the electronic siren (attached Form 5) by settling the Plaintiff’s credit card with the Plaintiff’s credit card, and around February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s credit card.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since ownership of the instant article is deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant article in accordance with D’s performance recommendation decision is unlawful.

I would like to say.

As to this, the defendant argued that the receipt (A) dated June 11, 2016 entered D as a customer name D, and that the plaintiff did not purchase it. However, the above argument by the defendant is rejected, since the credit card which purchased the goods concerned is confirmed to be the plaintiff's credit card.

B. Furthermore, although the Plaintiff asserts that the remainder of the attached attachment list is owned by the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow