beta
Text
1. The Defendant rendered an executory judgment in Suwon District Court Decision 2017Kadan59409 against Nonparty C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 2, 2018, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case No. 2017Gadan59409, the Defendant executed a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on the objects indicated in the attached attachment list, including corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) located in the Seoul Southern-gu Incheon apartment and E (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. The plaintiff does not reside in the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff's Dong C and his mother, the non-party F, together with the apartment of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that since the corporeal movables of this case purchased at the expense of the plaintiff, the defendant asserted that the compulsory execution against the corporeal movables of this case among the compulsory execution of this case based upon the execution title against C is improper, and the defendant does not reside in the apartment of this case. Thus, the corporeal movables of this case are owned by C.
B. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers), the plaintiff purchased TV among the corporeal movables of this case on or around February 4, 2015, ② the plaintiff purchased air conditioners among the corporeal movables of this case on or around March 19, 2016, and then delivered them to the apartment of this case where C and F reside, and the F received the said air conditioners; ③ the plaintiff purchased the wall of this case on or around June 21, 2018, and then delivered them to the apartment of this case and received the said air conditioners by F, etc. In addition to the facts that F is the plaintiff's money, the corporeal movables of this case are all purchased by the plaintiff, and all of the goods purchased by the plaintiff.