A. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant, based on the executory payment order of the instant case No. 2014Guj854, Jyang-si District Court of Goyang-si, Jyang-si, Jyang-gu, Jyang-gu, Jyang-gu, the Defendant, based on the executory payment order of the instant case No. 2014, issued a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

B. B signed a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff on August 31, 2012, and thereafter operates convenience stores as described in the foregoing paragraph from that time.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution of this case based on the executive title against B shall be dismissed.

3. The defendant's assertion that the compulsory execution of this case is justifiable because the movable property of this case did not indicate that it is owned by the plaintiff, and that B is not an independent business operator but an agent of the plaintiff. However, the circumstance cited by the defendant alone is difficult to deem that B is a business agent of the plaintiff. Since B does not indicate that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, it is merely a business agent of the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case is not justified. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.