logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.11 2016가단103390
제3자이의
Text

1. On August 2016, the Defendant: (a) based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 2016 No. 52, Aug. 2, 2016.

Reasons

1. The Defendant executed a seizure (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) of each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant corporeal movables”) on August 18, 2016, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with an executory power of evidence 2016No. 52 in the D office by a notary public against Nonparty C, on August 18, 2016, Gangnam-gu Seoul E and 401 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since each of the instant corporeal movables asserted by the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff, which was purchased and used by the Plaintiff, the enforcement of the instant corporeal movables by the Defendant, the creditor of C, should be denied.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate on October 19, 2012 and used and resided as a residence from that time; ② the instant property starts and appears to have been arranged for the Plaintiff to reside in the instant real estate with the articles installed at the time of commencing ordinary residential life, such as air conditioners, washing machines, TVs, sediments, and cremation, etc.; ③ the Defendant did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant corporeal movables except the said golf loans are owned by the Plaintiff, in addition to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the claim for golf loans with the Plaintiff’s name tag at the first oral argument, it is reasonable to deem that the instant articles are owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to enforce the instant compulsory execution with the Defendant’s claim against C with the claim against C.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow