1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Da53265, the Defendant filed a motion for seizure of C’s corporeal movables possessed by the Busan Suwon-gu D 401 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the basis of the executory exemplification of the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Da53265.

(Subsan District Court Branch Branch 2016No. 512). (b)

On March 15, 2016, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Busan District Court's Dong Branch (hereinafter "the movable of this case") seized corporeal movables in the attached list possessed by C on March 15, 2016.

C. C has leased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and operated restaurant business in the name of “E” at that place, and the instant movable property is equipped with facilities used by C to operate the said restaurant.

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable property was purchased at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant movable property around 2015, and the subject of lease includes not only the instant movable property but also the instant movable property.

In other words, the instant movable is merely a corporeal movable owned by the Plaintiff and leased to C, and the Defendant cannot seize the said movable based on the executive title against C.

B. We examine the judgment, and the movables of this case are corporeal movables possessed and used by C while running restaurant business, and only the statement of Gap evidence No. 2 was agreed between the plaintiff and C as the object of lease.

(1) The court below held that the plaintiff purchased the above corporeal movables, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In short, as long as it is difficult to view the instant movable as the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Plaintiff’s claim disputing a compulsory execution against the said movable with the executive title against C cannot be accepted.

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