(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.30 2018가단212537

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.30 2018가단212537

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. The plaintiff is a couple A and a legal couple, and is residing together in the Suwon-gu E and Fho Lake (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

B. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on July 10, 2018, a report on the attachment of corporeal movables in a notary public Gone Office entered the enforcement title as the same; (b) however,

No. 1332 of the No. 1332 of the No. 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the No. 1332, the document attached the articles listed in the attached list in the apartment of this case (hereinafter “instant articles”).

(A) Each entry in Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including each number), Eul's evidence of subparagraph 1, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings (hereinafter referred to as "mandatory execution of this case")

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a unique property that the Plaintiff purchased and possessed, and thus, the instant compulsory execution should not be denied.

B. 1) Determination 1) The property acquired by one side of a couple in his/her own revenue and name shall be deemed to be owned solely by one side of the couple’s property. However, it is presumed that the property not so belongs to either side of the couple’s own property is presumed to be owned jointly by the couple’s co-ownership (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). The corporeal movables possessed by the debtor and his/her spouse as co-ownership of the debtor and his/her spouse or possessed jointly with their spouse may be seized (Article 190(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant property is the unique

Rather, according to the above provision, the goods of this case are presumed to be jointly owned by the plaintiff and the plaintiff, who are married couple, and the goods necessary for the communal living of the married couple, and are possessed jointly by the plaintiff and the plaintiff A, the compulsory execution of this case

As such, it can be seen.

참조조문

-민법 제830조 제2항

-민사집행법 제190조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단21571

-대전지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가단20367

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.23 2018가단23767

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.03.28 2018가단69519

-울산지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단17333