logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원장흥지원 2015.09.01 2015가합616
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D, as the husband of the Defendant, lent KRW 64 million to C, July 27, 1996, and lent KRW 50 million to C as a joint and several surety on July 27, 2003.

B. D’s death on April 10, 2008, the Defendant succeeded to the net D’s claim against DD C.

C. On July 27, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of KRW 50 million for the above loan as the head of the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch of 201Gadan543, and filed a lawsuit against C and E seeking payment of KRW 64 million for the above loan as the head of the Gwangju District Court Branch of 2011Gadan536, respectively, and the above decisions became final and conclusive around that time.

On May 7, 2015, the Defendant seized the movable property in attached Tables 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant movable property”) based on the executory exemplification of each of the above judgments.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant movable owned by the Plaintiff, not C, and thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movable ought to be denied.

B. 1) Determination 1) The lawsuit filed by a third party is seeking exclusion by asserting the right to block the transfer or delivery of ownership or other subject matter of execution already commenced. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, namely, whether the Plaintiff has the right to ownership or other rights to such subject matter, is the Plaintiff asserting that the Plaintiff is the owner of the movable property in this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is the owner of the movable property in this case. Rather, in full view of each of the arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1-3, 3-11, and 13, the Plaintiff’s father, the execution place of the movable property in this case, shall actually operate the “G” located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

arrow