1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against each of the adjoining instruments, which the plaintiff's employees expressed as owned by the plaintiff, should be denied, among the movables listed in the attached list of the end of the judgment of the court of first instance at least in the attached list of the end of the judgment of the court of first instance, consistent with the details of the

We examine H-type lectures.

According to the evidence No. 2, around October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the HG equivalent to 25,575 km from Gohap Steel Co., Ltd.

However, according to the above evidence, the facts that the plaintiff's address is shown as Gyeong-gun G in Gyeong-gun in Gyeong-nam. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the H type of the plaintiff's H type of the B corporation at the time of compulsory execution, which is the location of the B corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

A reference shall be deemed to apply with respect to each corresponding equipment.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 38 and Gap evidence Nos. 13 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and witness E of the court of first instance, the plaintiff's employee was working with six to seven folds in a melting period; the plaintiff's employee was installed in Gyeongnam-gun C, Gyeongnam-gun, which is the location of B corporation; and Eul stated that B corporation was using a melting machine from the plaintiff.

However, in light of the above evidence and the establishment time and establishment purpose of B corporation as shown in the evidence No. 9, and the time when E takes part in the management of B corporation, it is difficult to believe the testimony of E by the witness of the first instance court as it is.

There is no evidence to know about the ownership or location of the contact with the plaintiff's employee, and it is the object of compulsory execution.