beta
Text
1.D:
A. On May 1, 2015, Defendant B’s notarial deed No. 620, which is based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed No. 620, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B is a creditor based on No. 620 of the notarial deed No. 620, 2014, and Defendant C is a creditor based on the notarial deed No. 444, 2014.
B. Defendant B: (a) on May 1, 2015; and (b) on May 6, 2015, Defendant C, based on each authentic deed, performed compulsory execution against the articles listed in the separate sheet in Seosan City F (hereinafter “instant movable”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s lease of the said entertainment tavern including the instant movable property from June 28, 201 to July 6, 201 may be acknowledged under the condition that the Plaintiff reserved the ownership of the instant movable property to D on January 12, 201, under the real estate rental procedure (I) No. 101 of the H building No. 101, which was sold at the real estate rental procedure (I) on January 18, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 15, 2011.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant movable cannot be deemed as a liability property owned by D.
[Attachment, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff was owned by the Plaintiff in the data of this case, but the Plaintiff J also asserts the acquisition of ownership of the movable in this case. Therefore, it is likely that a judgment on whether to bona fide acquisition, etc. should be made through a separate lawsuit.] Therefore, in relation to D, according to Defendant B’s compulsory execution against the movable in the original copy of the No. 620 of the No. 620 of the No. 2014, May 1, 2015, based on the original copy of the No. 444 of the No. 2014, May 6, 2015, the compulsory execution against the movable in the separate sheet No. 1305, May 2015, this Court rejected the compulsory execution against the movable in the separate sheet as indicated in the No. 2015, May 6, 2015.