beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 18, 2018, based on the executory payment order in the Incheon District Court 2017 tea5702 case, the Defendant seized corporeal movables to the Suwon District Court E (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to each movable stated in the attachment list in the attachment list attached to D in the Sungsung City City of January 18, 2018.
The Plaintiff acquired the right to transfer a security on the movable property listed in the attached list No. 3 prior to the instant seizure (hereinafter “instant movable property”), and filed an objection against the Defendant by asserting that the instant compulsory execution on the instant movable property ought to be denied.
(U) On February 14, 2019, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that the compulsory execution of the instant movable property should not be permitted on the ground that “The instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff according to the said movable property transfer contract,” and that the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 150 million, which the Plaintiff and C assumed against the Plaintiff. However, the instant movable property was transferred to the Plaintiff by means of the occupancy and alteration of the ownership of the instant movable property to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 150,000,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, the purport of the whole argument
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 166,785,00 as follows, due to the defendant's seizure of the movable property of this case owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant should pay KRW 166,785,00 and delay damages therefor to the plaintiff.
B. The parties to the legal dispute seek a final settlement of the dispute to the court is an important issue related to the foundation of the rule of law. Therefore, the right to the trial should be respected to the maximum extent, and the determination of whether the filing of the lawsuit or the responding act constitutes tort.