logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2016.05.26 2015가단4255
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On December 1, 2015, this Court shall have regard to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution of 2015 Chicago13.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On August 27, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables in the building D and E, based on the executory exemplification of the ruling of recommending reconciliation rendered on August 27, 2015 with respect to the claim for collection amount claim between the Seoul Southern District Court, Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap2943, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables in the building D and E (Seoul District Court 2015No485). On October 13, 2015, the enforcement officer of the Daejeon District Court branch branch branch branch of the Daejeon District Court who received the Defendant’s delegation of enforcement was executing seizure of each corporeal movables listed in

(A) The instant corporeal movables No. 29 on the Plaintiff’s argument (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) are owned by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables were left to C due to the narrow relationship between the Plaintiff’s house and the place where the instant corporeal movables were kept.

Therefore, the part concerning the instant corporeal movables during the execution of the seizure of this case should be rejected as it infringes on the Plaintiff’s ownership.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of entry and pleading of No. 1, the Plaintiff is likely to sell the corporeal movables of this case to C on credit.

In addition, it is difficult to understand that 10 kg, 49 g, which is the 49 gbs, leave rice to another person on the ground of narrow location.

Considering this point, it is insufficient to recognize that the corporeal movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff only with the statement of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow