beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 2, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court 2014Da239528 against Nonparty C and D, the Defendant seized for compulsory execution against Nonparty C and D the movables listed in the attached list located in the F restaurant located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu (hereinafter “instant movables”).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 5
2. The instant movable property asserted by the Plaintiff is the property owned by the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff acquired with compensation from C and D.
Nevertheless, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case, which was made on the premise that it is owned by C and D, should be denied.
3. Based on the above argument, the plaintiff presented a business agreement (Evidence A 2) that he/she registered as a business operator of the above F restaurant, reported his/her business (Evidence A 2), a business agreement that he/she agreed to operate a F restaurant with C, etc., and financial transaction details (Evidence A 4) proving the payment of the price under the above business agreement (Evidence A). However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is the owner of the movable property of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the Plaintiff appears to have no specific motive or reason to operate the F restaurant in partnership with C, etc.; ② around March 9, 2015, on the date of the preparation of the above business contract, the Plaintiff was unable to engage in the normal business of F restaurant, such as C, etc. being subject to a lawsuit by the Defendant, etc.; ③ There was no entry of the amount of investment or the amount of money for transfer, which is the most important content in the above business contract; ④ On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was present at the date of the first pleading of the instant case, and entered into a business agreement on June 4, 2015, and the transfer price was paid in preference to C, and the transfer price was paid in advance, which is KRW 60 million,500,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and ⑤ the said statement on the movable property in this case.