1. A notarized deed by the Defendant against C is an executory deed of No. 68, 2020.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (including paper numbers), the defendant filed an application for the seizure of movables in the Jung-gu Incheon District Court E, including the movables in the attached list (hereinafter "the movables in this case"), with the Incheon District Court E, based on the executory exemplification of the law firm D Deed No. 68, 2020 (hereinafter "the authentic copy of this case"). On February 20, 202, the Incheon District Court enforcement officer seized the above movables on February 20, 20. However, the movables in this case were purchased by the plaintiff from H company, I company, etc., and as the water treatment physician of the hospital operated by the plaintiff C, the defendant concluded a lease agreement with C on November 23, 2019 and lent it to the above hospital.

According to the above facts, since the movables of this case are not C but owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the movables of this case cannot be permitted as it infringes on the plaintiff's ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.