A. From August 2010 to November 2014, the Plaintiff purchased each of the movables listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”).

B. The Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the tenant in the lease contract for F apartment No. 104, 1603, Busan, which had been residing by his/her family member, from the above D, and began to reside in the above apartment from June 2016. The Plaintiff was a director of the above apartment and used each of the instant movable property for the building of the above apartment.

C. On October 26, 2016 with respect to each of the instant movables, Defendant C, based on the executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 1619, No. 1619, No. 1616, written by a notary public in relation to D, and Defendant B, based on the executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 1612, written by a notary public in relation to D. < Amended by Act No. 1612, Oct. 26, 2016>

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant B: A without any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 11 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, defendant C: Confession (Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants’ ownership of each of the instant movable property at the time of compulsory execution against each of the instant movable property based on the notarial deed as to D is owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the movables in this case based on each notarial deed against the defendants' D should not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.