1. The original copy of a promissory note with C’s executory power, No. 2013Do389, a notary public against C, is a law firm branch.

1. The Defendant, without dispute, obtained a ruling of seizure of corporeal movables by a notary public of the Plaintiff’s attached list (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) under this Court No. 2014No. 4771, the executory exemplification of a promissory note No. 2013No. 389, a law firm branch. Accordingly, on October 14, 2014, the seizure execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) was conducted against the articles listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant articles”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the instant articles is not permissible, since all of the instant articles are owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that the head of the place where the attachment of this case was executed is D as the wife of the debtor C, and that the attachment of this case was executed only for the items that C and D jointly occupied and used at the time of the attachment execution. Thus, the attachment of this case is justified.

3. Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 5-9 and the whole purport of the pleadings are as follows: ① The Seongbuk-gu Seoul E apartment 116-dong 1001 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") is the plaintiff's ownership; ② The seizure of the apartment of this case, which was executed on June 27, 2008, before the seizure execution of this case, was conducted on the same place under the prosecutor's collection order on June 27, 2008, was accepted by the plaintiff's explanation that it is his own property, and the execution of the seizure was revoked. The list Nos. 1 (Attached Table No. 1) among the articles of this case, Nos. 4, and 1 (Attachment Table No. 1), 1 (Attachment Table No. 608) among the articles of this case, are included in the list No. 208 (Attachment No. 201) among the articles of this case.