1. The Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation rendered by the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 2018, the Gu and Si court of the 106429, in relation to C.

1. On February 28, 2019, the Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation rendered by the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 2018 a.m., Kimcheon-si, 2018 a.m. (hereinafter “instant movable property”), seized each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was found to have received a decision of permission for sale as the highest bidder for the movables and sports bicycles No. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 among the movables of this case at an open auction on September 17, 2015, prior to the execution of seizure for the movables of this case, and paid KRW 970,000 for the proceeds of sale.

According to the above facts, the movables Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 among the movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff purchased each of the above movables upon the request of C with the proceeds of sale from C. Thus, each of the above movables is owned by C. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.