1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of corporeal movables with the same court 2014No2678 based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Incheon District Court Branch 2013da36752. On August 12, 2014, the enforcement officer affiliated with the same court seized the instant movables.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 5 and 7

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on December 19, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to C as of December 19, 201; and (b) on December 19, 2012, C failed to repay the said amount even after the maturity date; and (c) on August 6, 2013, C provided the instant movable property as security for transfer to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant movable ought to be denied.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent money to C, and according to Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), C leased 20,000 won to the Defendant from the Defendant during June 2007, and operated F at this time from this time. From October 25, 2011, in arrears as of September 25, 201, the amount of the deposit was deducted, and the Defendant entered the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court as of October 4, 2013 as to the building name and unjust enrichment claim against C and D, and obtained a favorable judgment on May 20, 201, and it was recognized that C had already been subject to compulsory execution between the Plaintiff and the owner of the aforementioned movable property, and that C had already claimed the ownership of the aforementioned movable property, such as the instant property transferred for security and the instant property transferred for sale.