beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Decision 2018Kao-50 dated July 12, 2018, with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2018Kao-50 rendered against C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Based on the executory exemplification of the final decision of the amount of litigation costs set forth in the Jeonju District Court Decision 2018Kao-50, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Branching 2018No339, Oct. 23, 2018 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) against C, and the seizure of the attached movables, which were kept in Dong-Eup (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) located in Dong-Eup (hereinafter “instant house”), the domicile of the said district court.
B. On September 18, 2018, between C and C, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement that sets forth one column of the two partitions of the instant housing as KRW 300,000, monthly rent, and KRW 200,000, among the two partitions of the instant housing.
The Plaintiff, around that time, moved from the housing of this case, such as beds, cremation, and living room, and completed the move-in report on October 10, 2018.
C. Before moving into the instant house, the Plaintiff borrowed and resided from E before moving into the instant house, and kept the said room, each of them held a public performance, and returned to the site. On September 2, 2018, the Plaintiff sent text messages to the Plaintiff, and sent the Plaintiff’s goods in custody in the room, which were recorded in pictures. Among the instant corporeal movables, the instant corporeal movables were included in the images in which the objects other than wood terminals were taken, and on the other hand, a wooden shots constitute a body of wood cremation.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the whole of the corporeal movables in this case, which were kept in custody in the house of this case, were owned by the plaintiff, and therefore, compulsory execution against the corporeal movables in this case cannot be permitted as it infringes on
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.