The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On January 9, 2020, the Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with Cheongju District Court 2019Kadan135, Cheongju District Court 2019Kadan135, the Defendant executed a seizure of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) (C).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings] 2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the movables of this case should not be allowed, since the movables of this case are leased to Eul and owned by the plaintiff.

3. The contract was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant movable property (the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed only to the Plaintiff’s seal, and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal is not attached), and the amount in the financial transaction details submitted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on the receipt of the siren fee (A 3) is inconsistent with the rental fee claimed by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the above specification of transactions (A3) was remitted to the sum of other main equipment sirens and sales proceeds to C, but did not submit evidence to support the other transaction with C without expressly stating what is the other transaction with C.

In addition, even though the Plaintiff additionally submitted the details of financial transactions (A4) with the details of remittance at the time of purchase of the instant movable property, it cannot be seen that the said details were paid for the purchase price of the instant movable property solely on the basis of Party A4.

For this reason, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.