beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the denial of compulsory execution against the deposit claims listed in the separate sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As the deceased C died on December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff, D, and E, the heir, filed a qualified acceptance report with the competent court 2015-Ma86, which was adjudicated on March 6, 2015, to accept the said report by the said court.
B. The Defendant, a creditor of the net C, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, D, and E seeking the return of the above loan, and the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 4,285,714, KRW 2857, KRW 142, and KRW 20% per annum from March 5, 2015 to the date of complete payment” (this Court Decision 2015No30, KRW 2015, KRW 3030, and the related judgment) was rendered on July 27, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
C. On December 15, 2015, based on the relevant judgment, the Defendant issued a collection order (this Court No. 2015 Other Bonds No. 10683, hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against each of the deposit claims listed in the Plaintiff’s separate sheet (hereinafter “instant one claim” and “instant two claims”) as indicated in the Plaintiff’s separate sheet.
[Reasons for Recognition] A.1-7 Evidence, each entry (including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine whether the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the non-permission of compulsory execution against the claim of this case is legitimate or not among the lawsuit of this case which sought the non-permission of compulsory execution against the claim of this case ex officio.
The deposit contract for the claim 1 of this case (the debtor: the original agricultural cooperative) is terminated before the issuance of the seizure and collection order of this case, and the remaining amount is deemed to be zero, or there is no dispute between the parties, or the third party with the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership against the object of compulsory execution, and the third party with the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership is actually being carried out.