Applicant

Respondent

Chuncheon District Court Order 2009Kaman70 dated March 26, 2009

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

A. On July 11, 2007, the Respondent filed a lawsuit against the Respondent for the claim of return of the lease deposit against the Respondent (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2006Kadan8018, the Respondent rendered a judgment that the Respondent shall pay the Respondent 22,980,279 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from May 6, 2007 to July 11, 2007 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On February 24, 2009, the applicant filed an application for the entry of the respondent in the defaulters' list with the Seocho District Court 2009Kao70, which was decided on March 26, 2009 by the judicial assistant officer of the court of first instance to register the respondent in the defaulters' list pursuant to Article 71(1) of the Civil Execution Act, since the respondent did not perform his/her obligation within six months after the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2009, and the respondent filed an objection (Immediate appeal) on April 10, 2009, but the court of first instance decided on May 7, 2009 that approved the above disposition by the judicial assistant of the court of first instance.

2. Respondent's assertion and judgment

The respondent argues that the decision of the first instance court should be revoked because the applicant's application for specification of property against the respondent and provisional seizure on movable property and real property owned by the respondent has a clear reason to recognize that it can be easily enforced.

According to the records, in May 2009, the applicant seized the above judgment as executive title against movable property, such as a cooling house owned by the respondent, and applied for provisional seizure on November 17, 2006 to the building listed in the attached list owned by the respondent (hereinafter "the building in this case") in the Chuncheon District Court, 2006Kadan1715, and the provisional seizure on the building in this case is recognized as having been registered on November 17, 2006. Meanwhile, in addition to the above provisional seizure, the building in this case is also recognized as having been registered on the provisional seizure against the mortgagee, the life insurance company for the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount of 58,50,000, the creditor, the non-party, the provisional seizure registration on the real property, the registration on the provisional seizure on the claim amount of 10,133,810, and the vice governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the vice governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the respondent claimed on June 29, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is just and it is dismissed as the respondent's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judges Lee E-interest (Presiding Judge)