{"status":"available","ecli":null,"court":"BGH","senate":"IX. Zivilsenat","decided":"2008-07-14","aktenzeichen":"IX ZB 102/07","doktyp":"Beschluss","leitsatz":null,"text_plain":"BUNDESGERICHTSHOF \n\nIX ZB 102/07 \n\nBESCHLUSS \n\nvom \n\n14. Juli 2008 \n\nin dem Zwangsvollstreckungsverfahren \n\nDer IX. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs hat am 14. Juli 2008 durch den Vor-\n\nsitzenden Richter Dr. Ganter, die Richter Prof. Dr. Gehrlein, Vill, die Richterin \n\nLohmann und den Richter Dr. Fischer \n\nbeschlossen: \n\nDer Senatsbeschluss vom 29. Mai 2008 wird wegen offensichtli-\n\ncher Unrichtigkeit dahin berichtigt, dass es auf der Seite 3 im \n\nersten Absatz, fünfte Zeile statt \"19. März 2003\" heißen muss: \"19. \n\nMai 2003\". \n\nGanter \n\nGehrlein \n\nVill \n\nLohmann \n\nFischer \n\nVorinstanzen: \n\nAG Düsseldorf, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2006 - 661 M 1590/06 - \n\nLG Düsseldorf, Entscheidung vom 04.05.2007 - 25 T 205/07 -","source":null,"source_url":null,"url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","cited_norms":[],"authoritative_source":null,"attribution":null,"source_info":{"name":"nu:legal Deutsches Recht","operator":"Nulegal GmbH","terms":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/nutzungsbedingungen","attribution":"Source: nu:legal – recht.nulegal.eu","license_url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/license","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","retrieved":"2026-07-10 19:48:07.238389+00:00"},"card":{"id":"bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","court":"BGH","court_id":"bgh","court_as_stated":"BGH","panel":"IX. Zivilsenat","date":"2008-07-14","dockets":["IX ZB 102/07"],"decision_type":"Beschluss","ecli":null,"ids":{"ecli":null},"cite_as":"BGH, Beschluss vom 14.07.2008 – IX ZB 102/07","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","headnotes":[],"leitsatz_status":"not_captured","tenor":null,"tenor_status":"not_marked","cited_norms":[],"cited_norms_basis":"extracted_from_text","normenkette":null,"proceeding":{"entries":[{"position":1,"court":"AG Düsseldorf","court_id":null,"court_as_stated":"AG Düsseldorf","date":"2006-10-18","docket":"661 M 1590/06","decision_type":null,"ecli":null,"id":null,"url":null,"is_this_decision":false,"is_held":false},{"position":2,"court":"LG Düsseldorf","court_id":"lg-duesseldorf","court_as_stated":"Landgericht Düsseldorf","date":"2007-05-04","docket":"25 T 205/07","decision_type":"Beschluss","ecli":"ECLI:DE:LGD:2007:0504.25T205.07.00","id":"lg-duesseldorf/2007-05-04/25-t-205-07","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/lg-duesseldorf/2007-05-04/25-t-205-07","is_this_decision":false,"is_held":true},{"position":3,"court":"BGH","court_id":"bgh","court_as_stated":"BGH","date":"2008-07-14","docket":"IX ZB 102/07","decision_type":"Beschluss","ecli":null,"id":"bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2008-07-14/ix-zb-102-07","is_this_decision":true,"is_held":true}],"has_records":true,"note":"As the courts' records state it (getProceeding). No outcome is given."},"fundstellen":[],"provenance":{"source":null,"source_url":null,"retrieved_at":"2026-07-10T19:48:07.238389+00:00","text_quality":"native","attribution":null},"ai_summary":null,"ai_summary_available":false}}