(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.24 2016가단10728

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.24 2016가단10728

제3자이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, on March 11, 2015, delegated a compulsory execution against B’s corporeal movables on the ground of the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2011 Ghana No. 1107509 against B (hereinafter “instant executory title”).

In March 29, 2016, the enforcement officer C belonging to the Jung-gu District Court completed the attachment execution of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the Jinyang-si District Court No. 2016No. 1544 (hereinafter “instant enforcement place”) in order to ensure that the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the judgment on this issue were asserted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not actually reside at the place of execution of this case, and the instant movable property located at the place of execution of this case is owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that compulsory execution against the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the enforcement title against B is unjust.

In light of the following: (a) there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that the instant movable was owned by the Plaintiff; (b) rather, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 1 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, B received a certified copy of the 2016Kao611 Property Order at the execution place of the instant case on March 9, 2016; and (c) the enforcement officer C confirmed B’s name at the execution place of the instant case and the business registration certificate on March 29, 2016.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's above assertion that Eul had actually resided in the execution place of this case until the time of the execution of the above seizure, and that Eul was only the moving-in report of resident registration and did not have resided in the execution place of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.19 2016가단21933

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.05 2016가단32698

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.05.29 2014가단39312

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.06 2016가단9414

-인천지방법원 2020.12.15 2020가단252252