The defendant has the executive force of the return of the lease deposit(C) deposit(C) by Seogu District Court 2019Da271.

1. The fact that the Defendant had no dispute over the Plaintiff’s son, based on the executory payment order for the lease deposit return case (No. 2019Guj271) issued against the Plaintiff’s son, the fact that on March 31, 2020, on March 31, 2020, the Defendant executed the attachment of the articles listed in the attached list in the [Attachment] from the Gyeongbuk-gun E Apartment F, the residence of this Court D (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserts that the corporeal movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that the above corporeal movables used by C at his domicile are owned by C, not by the plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant seized the instant corporeal movables based on the executory exemplification of the judgment No. 2008Gadan40186 by the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court of C, and on October 30, 2018, H purchased the said corporeal movables at the auction procedure, and the Plaintiff may acknowledge that H purchased the said corporeal movables at KRW 1 million, and there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff purchased the said corporeal movables with C’s money or that the said corporeal movables were owned by C, not by the Plaintiff.

(However, in addition to the corporeal movables of this case, the time of the air office which is additionally seized seems to be owned by the I company).

Therefore, a compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables by the Defendant is unlawful as it was against the Plaintiff’s property, not a debtor of the title of execution.

3. For this reason, we accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case in entirety and decide as per Disposition.