beta
Text
1. The defendant's order of payment order (2018j. 31) against the defendant's company E is enforceable.
Reasons
1. On January 17, 2019, the Defendant received a payment order against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), as described in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition, and executed attachment (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to the movables described in Paragraph (1) of the Order from F to G to this court at the time of Ansan, which is the domicile of E, based on its executory exemplification.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the owner of the movable property of this case is the plaintiff. Thus, the compulsory execution of this case under the premise that the movable property of this case is owned by Eul should be dismissed
① On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property from H Co., Ltd.
② The instant movable property is indicated as the Plaintiff’s ownership in the certificate of custody prepared by the I Co., Ltd.
③ As seen earlier, the Defendant also asserted that the instant movable property is a juristic person in fact identical with the Plaintiff on the premise that it is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant compulsory execution is lawful.
3. The defendant's assertion is legitimate since the plaintiff and E are corporations in fact identical to the plaintiff's e-mail, taking into account the same day and time as the plaintiff and E, the registration of change of the head office in the same place, the inside director B is performing the lawsuit in this case, and the J, an employee of E, uses the plaintiff's e-mail. However, the defendant's assertion that the compulsory execution in this case is legitimate, but it is difficult to view that the plaintiff
4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.