1. The defendant is based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2018 tea 6270 against C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased each of the items listed in the [Attachment No. 1-9] No. 3,620,000 (hereinafter “each of the items of this case”) in the auction procedure for corporeal movables related to creditors D Co., Ltd. and debtors C, etc., at KRW 3,620,000.

B. On November 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to each of the instant items, etc. at C’s residence as the executory exemplification of the payment order against Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2018Guj6270, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010, supra.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact of recognition under paragraph (1), the Plaintiff paid the proceeds of sale in the corporeal movables auction procedure on May 21, 2019, and received the goods of this case from the Plaintiff and lawfully acquired the ownership thereof.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case against each of the goods of this case owned by the plaintiff as a title of execution against C should not be permitted.

B. The defendant asserts that C continues to possess and use each of the objects of this case even after the above auction, and therefore, C is the owner of each of the objects of this case.

The circumstances asserted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that C is the owner of each of the instant goods at present, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.