1. On the basis of the original of the payment order with executory power of Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea 68847 against B, the Defendant is subject to the original of the payment order with executory power of Seoul Central District Court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff is a dependent of B, and is residing together with G in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 307 Dong 401.

The above apartment house, which is the plaintiff and B's residence, is owned by Eul.

B. On February 22, 2018, through the Seoul East Eastern District Court case No. 2018No. 332, the Defendant attached the attached list in the Plaintiff and B’s residence based on the executory payment order copy with Seoul Central District Court No. 2010 tea68847, supra.

C. Of the items listed in the attached list, the laundry period Nos. 5, 7 and 7 are attached to the apartment complex in which the Plaintiff resides, and there are things owned by D, the owner of the above apartment complex, or those possessed by the Plaintiff, and all the remainder are owned by the Plaintiff.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant, based on the original copy of an order for payment with executory power of Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea68847, which is the executive title against B, enforced execution on February 22, 2018 on the plaintiff's own, D's own, or the items listed in the attached list possessed by the plaintiff. It is impossible to enforce compulsory execution on the plaintiff's own, not the debtor on the title of execution, and it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution on the property owned by D who is not a debtor. The plaintiff can file a lawsuit with a third party seeking the refusal of the above compulsory execution on the status of the owner or possessor (see Article 48 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1894, April 9, 2009). It is reasonable to deny the above compulsory execution on the property listed in the attached list.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.