A. The Plaintiff filed a motion for compulsory execution with respect to the movable property located in the D Apartment-si and 101 Dong 401 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) residing in the instant apartment on June 30, 2016 by a notary public against Nonparty C by means of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 140, 2014, which was enforced by the law firm, with respect to the said movable property. On June 30, 2016, the execution court executed the seizure of corporeal movables on the movable property located in the instant apartment.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff does not reside in the owner of the instant apartment or the said apartment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, among the goods attached by the above seizure execution, food table (4 chairs) included in the option of the apartment of this case, and the earthquake cleaning machine (tribrity) purchased by the plaintiff, the above movable property is owned by the plaintiff, but the above movable property is illegal and thus, the above compulsory execution against C with the title of execution should not be permitted.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased 1 of Samsung Jinung-gu Pollution Stackers with his own card around March 10, 2016, and according to the above facts of recognition, even if only C was residing in the apartment of this case, so long as it is recognized that the Jin-gu Pollution Stackers (T) located in the apartment of this case, which was subject to seizure, purchased in the plaintiff's name as above, the ownership of the above goods is recognized as having been owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the compulsory execution against the truth cleaning machine among the compulsory execution based on the defendant's notarial deed against C should be denied as it is illegal as the compulsory execution against the third party's property, not the debtor.

C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above table was made out of the option of the apartment of this case or otherwise owned by the Plaintiff.