Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the air conditioners of this case based on the original copy of the payment order stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant C should not be allowed, since the plaintiff alleged that the air conditioners of this case were owned by the plaintiff. Thus, according to each of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to whether the air conditioners of this case were owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the air conditioners at the river conditioners around July 23, 2015, even though it is recognized that the air conditioners purchased by the plaintiff were owned by the plaintiff, but against the fact that the air conditioners purchased by the plaintiff were Samsung C conditioners, while the air conditioners listed in the above seizure list were Lelba, the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the air conditioners of this case were owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.