(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence A1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. Assertion and determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence Nos. 2-5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff, as C’s children, has different addresses in C and resident registration; ② the Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property with his (title E) or his former wife’s credit card, etc. and delivered it to the Plaintiff’s address; ③ the fact that the instant movable was enforced at the Plaintiff’s address where the instant movable was located; and ③ the fact that the instant movable was enforced, respectively, can be acknowledged. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the instant movable property

B. On this issue, the Defendant asserts that, with the long experience of seizure for long time, C had a different resident registration address, and in fact, C had resided in the Plaintiff’s address where the execution of the instant case was carried out and deducted all of its own property in the Plaintiff’s name in his own name. The Defendant also purchased the instant movable property in his own name, but it was actually used by C and thus, C’s ownership.

However, the aforementioned movables are insufficient to reverse the fact that the instant movables were deemed owned by the Plaintiff only on the sole basis of each image of No. 1 No. 1 (Es. 1) presented by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence against the Defendant

(B) The Defendant’s photographed house does not confirm C’s house recognition, and even if C’s house is located, the instant movable property purchased with the Plaintiff’s credit card, etc. is not considered as C’s ownership. Ultimately, the Defendant’s house is not considered as the instant movable property.