beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 24, 2013, the Defendant received a ruling of provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) from the Daejeon District Court as Seosan Branch of 2013Kahap3, Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court.
Then, on January 31, 2013 based on the decision of provisional seizure of this case, the Defendant executed provisional seizure as the Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2013Ga13 with respect to each of the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant movables”) on January 31, 2013, as indicated in the separate list No. 1, and the movables listed in the same list No. 2. 2.
B. In addition, on January 15, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Nonparty on the claim for the return of the amount borrowed under the Incheon District Court 2013Gahap849, and the Nonparty filed a counterclaim for the claim for the return of the amount of liquidation with the same court 2013Gahap105 on May 24, 2013.
(2) On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff and Nonparty dismissed all the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.
Accordingly, the plaintiff and the non-party appeal are currently pending in Seoul High Court 2013Na8196.
C. On the other hand, on June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant on the ground that the first and second movables of the instant case were owned by himself/herself by the Daejeon District Court as Seosan Branch Office 2013da7426, and received a favorable judgment on December 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant favorable judgment”).
On January 11, 2014, the above judgment became final and conclusive.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, 9 (including each number), Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the first and second movables of this case, leased the first and second movables of this case to the Nonparty, who operated the “E” on June 20, 2012, and the second movables of this case on October 4, 2012, respectively.
However, the defendant is against the non-party.