1. The Defendant rendered a final and conclusive judgment with executory power of the Suwon District Court Decision 2012Gaso7600, the Suwon District Court in relation to B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2012, the Defendant attached each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (C, 5 Dong Dong-si, 5 Dong-101 (D; hereinafter “the location of the instant case”) on July 17, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the final and conclusive judgment (2012 Dong-si, 7600) rendered by the Sucheon-si, Suwon District Court Branch of the Sucheon-si, 2012.

B. B transferred on January 2, 2014 at the location of the instant case, and each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet was located at the location of the instant case at the time of seizure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, since each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against each of the above corporeal movables should be denied on July 17, 2014.

B. The facts that corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1 are owned by the Plaintiff do not conflict between the parties. Therefore, a compulsory execution by the Defendant against corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on July 17, 2014 based on the executory exemplification of a final and conclusive judgment rendered by the Suwon District Court No. 2012Ga37600, Suwon District Court No. 201, the Defendant, based on the executory judgment rendered by the Suwon District Court No. 2012, May 17, 2014, shall

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 9, which are remaining corporeal movables, are purchased by the plaintiff or are owned by the plaintiff for other reasons. Thus, each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 9, is owned by the plaintiff.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.