logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가단17190
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In the auction of the rent of real estate, the Defendant: (a) at the time of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and other six parcels of land (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) paid in full the sale price on March 30, 2015; and (c) filed an application for an order to deliver real estate to the instant court against Handong General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); and (d) on July 20, 2015, rendered a decision that “the Nonparty Company shall deliver the instant building, etc.” (hereinafter “order to deliver the instant real estate”).

On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on the second floor of the instant building by accord and satisfaction with the claim for construction price from the non-party company, and received a provisional disposition prohibiting possession, transfer, and disposal of corporeal movables under the court 2015Kadan2231 as to the said movables.

On August 17, 2015, the Defendant commenced the delivery execution of the instant building on the basis of the executory exemplification of the decision to deliver the instant real estate (court 2015No2305). At that time, the instant corporeal movables were located on the second floor of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the instant corporeal movables, which are the cause of the claim, are owned by the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff that they were transferred from the non-party company, a compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables pursuant to the order to deliver the instant real estate to the non-party company

B. The Plaintiff sought exclusion from compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables on the premise that the instant corporeal movables are subject to compulsory execution under the order to deliver the instant real estate, but the order to deliver the instant corporeal movables was limited to the instant real estate, such as the instant building, and did not order to deliver the said movables to the corporeal movables located inside the said order.

arrow