Method of Compulsory Execution on Shares in Registered Ship

Since the non-party 1 has only a share in the vessel, the compulsory execution against the share is only allowed, and since the vessel is a non-registered vessel, it is reasonable to interpret that the compulsory execution against the share should be made in the same manner as the intangible property right.

Articles 2 and 6 of the Ship Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2074 Delivered on November 14, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15 third citizen290, summary of the decision, Article 687 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, 1086 pages)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 66A107 delivered on July 1, 198

Supreme Court Decision 67Da4 Delivered on March 21, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The execution executed on January 10, 196 by the defendant against the non-party 1 on the basis of an executory declaration of provisional execution payment order against the non-party 1, Gwangju District Court 63j 556 claim for promissorysory note payment against the non-party 1 shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant. A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1).

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the facts that the defendant, on January 10, 1966, executed a compulsory execution against the ship indicated in the purport of the claim on the basis of the original copy of the provisional execution order with executory declaration of provisional execution order against the non-party 1, the Gwangju District Court head of the Gwangju District Court's 63th 556 claim against the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1, 2, 3, 4 and the testimony of the non-party 5 and the defendant as the non-party 1, and the non-party 5, the plaintiff, together with the non-party 6, purchased the vessel on April 4, 1964 from the non-party 5 to the non-party 5 and operated the vessel in common (shared share) at the time, the defendant seized the whole of the vessel of this case in compulsory execution and transferred the vessel's possession to the collection month delegated by the defendant, and the above evidence No. 1 cannot be reversed.

Thus, since the non-party 1 has only shares in the vessel, it is reasonable to interpret that compulsory execution for the shares should be permitted, and it is reasonable to interpret that compulsory execution for the shares in the building, which is the non-registered vessel, should be executed in the same manner as the intangible property rights.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case is illegal, and the claim of the principal lawsuit as one of the co-owners is justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which makes the conclusion, is justified, and the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The litigation costs shall be governed by the principle of the losing party's apportionment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-joon (Presiding Judge)