beta
Text
1. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant’s District Court Decision 2013Da30844 decided as to B, based on an executory exemplification of the judgment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (No. 173,000,000 won each month from August 10, 2010 to July 30, 2013, 30,000 won, and 4,50,000 won each month from August 10, 2010 to July 30, 2013, to be paid in installments (if payment in installments is delayed at once, loss of the due date) as to movable property owned by B, including movable property listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant movable property”), with a view to securing the said debt (i.e., the creation of a security for transfer by means of possession and revision).
B. Meanwhile, on September 3, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for the payment of goods, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment with the District Court 2013Da30884, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables with the Suwon District Court 2013No. 8677 [Attachment to 2013No. 190, 2013No. 9289], and the execution officer of the Suwon District Court seized the instant movable property on September 30, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant attachment enforcement”). 【No dispute exists concerning the enforcement of the instant attachment (based on recognition), entry of evidence A1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff has the right to oppose the defendant, who is the execution creditor, because it is an external owner as a mortgagee to the movable property of this case by the Notarial Deed of this case. Thus, the execution of the seizure of this case by the defendant as to the movable property of this case should be rejected.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to the assertion of fraudulent act, the Defendant alleged that the transfer of security agreement based on the instant authentic deed between the Plaintiff and B constitutes a fraudulent act because B was the sole act of disposing of his own property, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless. However, the evidence submitted alone alone is the same as the Defendant’s claim against B.