A. On December 15, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C on the loan claim as Busan District Court Decision 201Da66746, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment with the above court on December 15, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

B. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant executed the seizure of corporeal movables in Ulsan-gun No. 410 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Defendant, as the Ulsan District Court 201Da66746, based on the Busan District Court Decision 2011Ga3712, Ulsan District Court 2013.

On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer with the Ulsan District Court No. 2013da32351, and the Ulsan District Court declared that only part of the above corporeal movables were asserted by the Plaintiff.

The auction of corporeal movables was conducted for the remaining corporeal movables, and the defendant was awarded a successful bid in 19.5 million won.

C. On December 26, 2014, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) in the Ulsan District Court No. 2014No4032, based on the Busan District Court Decision 201Ga36, Busan District Court Decision 2011Ga6746, supra.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). / [Ground of recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5-1, 5-5, and 6 of the third party’s evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 5-5, and 6, corporeal movables among each of the instant corporeal movables may be acknowledged as owned by the plaintiff purchased by the plaintiff. However, the above evidence and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the remaining corporeal movables (number 5, 6, 8, 9) are owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted only in the cases of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 among the corporeal movables of this case.

B. The plaintiff is a specialized debt collection business entity, and the third party, not a debtor C, who is not a debtor C.