beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against C shall have the executory power of Law Office No. 2068 of 2008.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff is a spouse under C’s law after marriage with C on April 6, 2017.
B. Of the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant goods”), the Plaintiff purchased the remaining goods except No. 3 during the period from June 14, 2016 to November 23, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, on September 26, 2008, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “C and a notary public borrowed KRW 16 million from the Defendant on September 26, 2008, setting the due date as set by November 26, 2008,” which read that “C borrowed KRW 16 million from the Defendant on September 26, 2008.”
Based on the original copy of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant applied for the seizure of corporeal movables in relation to the instant goods by the Gwangju District Court’s 2018No434, and the said court executed the seizure on March 15, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff purchased the remainder of the article except No. 3 among the article in this case with his own money before marriage with C, and its owner is the plaintiff. Therefore, the above compulsory execution under the premise that C is its owner cannot be permitted.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the articles listed in No. 3 among the articles of this case are owned by himself.
In the case where a third party has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or delivery of an object of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection against a compulsory execution that infringes on the third party’s ownership or right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of execution. The burden of proving that the ground for objection is that the object of compulsory execution is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of execution to the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the articles listed in No. 3 among the articles of this case are owned by the plaintiff.