1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of the premise of the dispute are as follows: (a) the Defendant delegated compulsory execution against C-owned corporeal movables on the ground of the executory exemplification of the judgment in the agreement deposit case of the Jung-gu District Court 2013Kadan15998 (hereinafter “instant executory title”).

On December 27, 2016, enforcement officers D belonging to the Jung-gu District Court completed a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) with respect to the corporeal movables (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) as indicated in the attached list in the Namyang-si E (hereinafter “instant execution place”) in the Namyang-si District Court No. 2016No. 6888 (hereinafter “instant execution place”).

The execution place of this case is a church building from August 3, 2006 to the date of the closing of the argument in this case, which is used for the purpose of worship.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination as to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the purport that, as the instant corporeal movables are located in the church building, which is the execution place of the instant case, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the title of execution against C, is unreasonable, since the Plaintiff’s purchase of the said church building for the said business, and as a part of the purchase of various household tools and houses within the said building necessary for the said business.

The written statements of Nos. 2, 4 and 1 to 4 are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant corporeal movables in the course of purchasing the said church building and site, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and there is no other evidence to deem that the instant corporeal movables belong to the Plaintiff’s possession.

Rather, the church building of this case is still being used by the F.I., as the plaintiff is also a person, and the church building of this case is still used by the F.I., and the title of the execution of this case.