A. In full view of the purport of evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 12 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s execution of attachment on the attached property list Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 77 (7) (hereinafter “instant property”) owned by the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the Busan District Court Decision 201Kadan6746 case, against C.

B. Since the execution of seizure of the instant goods is illegal as it is against the goods not owned by the obligor C, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the said goods, may seek the exclusion of the above compulsory execution against the Defendant.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 4(4) of the [Attachment List] is also owned by the Plaintiff.

However, since the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff's father C is the actual owner of the newly constructed house in which the plaintiff's father C resides, and the article in this case was purchased by the plaintiff with C's money according to the direction of C, so the actual owner of the article in this case is C.

However, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable since it is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion only with the evidence from Eul 1 to 6, and there is no other evidence to prove that the object of this case is C.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.