(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.10.16 2019가단383

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.10.16 2019가단383

제3자이의

Text

1. The Defendant rendered the order of payment with the executive force of 2018 tea 3504, the Cheongyang District Court of the Republic of Korea.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for purchase (hereinafter “instant contract”) of each movable property listed in the separate sheet (excluding value-added tax) from E engaging in wholesale and retail business, such as water shoot, with the trade name of “D”. Article 6 of the said contract provides that the instant contract shall be rescinded even if the Plaintiff fails to pay the cost of the instant machinery by July 30, 2017, and that E may recover the instant machinery without the peremptory notice of cancellation.

B. On August 2, 2017, E issued an electronic tax invoice with the supply value of KRW 30 million and value-added tax amount of KRW 30 million as a person who receives the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 33 million (including value-added tax) on the same day to E.

C. On November 8, 2018, the Defendant executed a seizure of the instant machinery to F of this Court on January 3, 2019 based on the order of payment with executory force (2018j3504), which was decided on November 27, 2018 and decided on November 8, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap 1-6 evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the machinery of this case is deemed to be owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can seek non-permission of compulsory execution by asserting that the defendant who performed compulsory execution against the machinery of this case is the owner of the machinery of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant machinery by the Defendant is not permissible.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First of all, the Defendant is a business entity operated by G only in the name of its representative, and in substance, is not the owner of G, and thus, the Plaintiff who acquired the instant machine from E shall not be deemed to have ownership.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.11.27 2018가단55763 (1)

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.09.25 2015가단93

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.05.09 2019가단2950

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.19 2017가합403309

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.20 2016가단24475