beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On March 7, 2019, the Defendant seized the articles listed in the attached list in the E (F Company) of the Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter “instant store”) on March 7, 2019 based on the executory payment order for the goods payment case No. 2019j. 18 against D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole argument as to the plaintiff's argument, which are set forth in Nos. 4 from among the items stated in the list of the plaintiff's argument as to the purport of the whole argument (hereinafter "Nos. 3") are Nos. 3 owned by the plaintiff and free of charge by the plaintiff around 2005
While the Plaintiff was managing the instant store upon the request of Da, the Plaintiff was using the said Nowon-gu in the said store, and the said Nowon-gu is owned by the Plaintiff.
Compulsory execution against the Nowon-do in this case shall not be permitted.
Judgment
A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is sought to exclude the subject matter of execution already commenced by asserting the right to block the transfer or delivery of ownership or other subject matter. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, i.e., the Plaintiff’s burden of proof as to whether the subject matter of execution has ownership or other rights.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that each of the receipts was issued to the Plaintiff by the mutual company of the Plaintiff, located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, to the effect that, on July 31, 2015, the business entity of “H” repaired the amount of KRW 1.70,000,000, by replacing the hard disc (50G) with respect to TG Triangbukbuk-gu, and that, on August 3, 2016, the business entity of “J” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City I received the repair amounting to KRW 1.50,000,00,000, including replacing the hard disc with respect to Triart North Korea.
C. However, the above evidence and facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Nowon-gu, which existed in the store of this case, is the Plaintiff’s ownership.