beta
Text
1. The Defendant has the power to execute the Gwangju District Court’s decision on performance recommendation No. 2018 Ghana20759 on May 4, 2018.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C on the claim for loans with the Gwangju District Court No. 2018 Ghana20759, and received a decision of performance recommendation that ordered the payment of the said loans from the above court on May 4, 2018 (hereinafter “instant decision of performance recommendation”), and the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive around that time.
On July 14, 2020, based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant rendered a seizure and enforcement of each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet in Gwangjubuk-gu E apartment and F (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables were purchased from G, the highest price purchaser of the instant corporeal movables, and that they were owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant corporeal movables were purchased from G, and that they were owned by the Plaintiff. In order to evade C’s debt, the Plaintiff obstructed compulsory execution by asserting a de facto marital relationship as of June 10, 2020 with respect to the instant corporeal movables, by asserting a de facto marital relationship at the time of seizure execution as of June 10, 2020, thereby interfering with the Defendant’s compulsory execution.
In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the defendant executed a seizure of the corporeal movables of this case to Gwangju District Court H on June 10, 2020 based on an executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation of this case. In the execution procedure of the above seizure, G purchased the corporeal movables of this case at KRW 3,010,000 as the highest price buyer, and the plaintiff purchased the corporeal movables of this case at KRW 3,00,000 from I on July 6, 2020. According to the above facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is the owner of the corporeal movables of this case.
Even if the plaintiff was paid 1/2 of dividends under the name of spouse dividends in the seizure execution procedure dated June 10, 2020.