The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a motion for compulsory execution against C with the executory process certificate No. 1055, No. 1055 of the 2020 deed No. 2020, which was signed by the notary public of Gwangju District Court E, for a compulsory execution against each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movables of this case”) located within the residence of Gwangju District Court E, and the said court execution officer seized the said movables on November 10, 2020.

B. Meanwhile, around October 2020, the above compulsory execution transfer, the Defendant enforced a compulsory execution against C’s house at the above residence. The instant movable was purchased from G managing “F” after the above compulsory execution.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is in a relationship with C, and the instant movable property purchased through C, and the Plaintiff bears the price and lends it to C.

At the time, the Plaintiff and C agreed to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant movable property for six months after C, but the Plaintiff did not pay the price of the said movable property in mind.

Therefore, since the owner of the instant movable is the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the said movable should be denied.

B. The evidence presented alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the owner of the movable property of this case is the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.