2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On April 9, 2014, the Defendant claimed the return of KRW 22,00,000 of the lease deposit in relation to the housing located in D at the time of selling the lease deposit with the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch 2013Kadan29878 (hereinafter “instant lease deposit claim”) against C, and won in full.

B. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant seized corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the E, 102 Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) at the time of selling the said judgment as the executive title.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that C had transferred the resident registration of the instant house owned by the Plaintiff, but did not actually reside, and that the instant movable is not owned by C, but owned by the Plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence No. 3, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant house, but the above recognition alone is insufficient to presume that the instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff.

In addition, the following circumstances, which are recognized by the statements in Gap evidence 4, 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), are as follows, i.e., the Eul had a residential address on the resident registration basis until September 17, 2014 after moving-in to the housing of this case on April 1, 2013, and after moving-in to the housing of this case, Eul had a residential address on the housing of this case. In addition, the lawsuit for claiming the return of the lease deposit of this case also proceeds with the housing of this case as its address in the lawsuit for claiming the return of the lease deposit of this case. ② In light of the fact that mail, health insurance card, passbook, etc. in the dwelling space of the housing of this case at the time of the execution of the movable property of this case were together with the savings bank in the name of the plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that each statement in Gap evidence 6 and 9 is consistent with the plaintiff's assertion.