logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.06.07 2015가단3988
제3자이의
Text

1. The Defendant has executory power over the case No. 2014 tea1934, which is the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board C.

Reasons

1. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (i.e., evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness D’s testimony, the Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si, E, F, G land, building and maintenance facilities, etc. on November 20, 2012, and without a deposit deposit, the Plaintiff may file an application for compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables with the competent court under the above court’s order to seize the said corporeal movables on May 25, 2015, including the entire land and buildings at C and the corporeal movables in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”). From November 20, 2012 to November 19, 2017, the monthly rent of KRW 5 million was leased from the date of the lease, and the Defendant may file an application for compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables with the competent court under the above court’s order to execute the execution order for payment order of KRW 2014 next 3525.

According to the above facts, since the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff, not C, the execution against the corporeal movables of this case owned by the defendant, not the execution debtor, based on the original of an executory payment order decision against C, shall be dismissed.

Supreme Court

6. See 2002Da16576 delivered on December 13, 199). The Defendant submitted a real estate lease agreement (Evidence A No. 1) submitted by the Plaintiff.

Although it is argued to the effect that it is invalid because it was fabricated with the intent to circumvent compulsory execution by the defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the evidence of the defendant's submission, there is no other evidence.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow