1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant: (a) performed compulsory execution against C on May 1, 2017, based on the authentic copy of the judgment with executory power in the case of Goyang-gu District Court 2010ddan6028 (principal lawsuit) and 2010ddan6035 (Counterclaim) (hereinafter “instant movable”); (b) since the instant movable is entirely owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movable is unreasonable and thus, should be denied.

2. First of all, the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable is all the goods owned by the Plaintiff (it is not possible to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased the goods with the receipt alone) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 2 and 6, and evidence Nos. 1, the purport of the argument is as follows: (a) the fact that the instant movable property is registered as owned by Kui-gu D apartment and 209 Dong 901, which is being used as the instant movable property; (b) C has resided in the said apartment after the moving-in report was made on Oct. 1, 2014; and (c) during the process of compulsory execution against the instant movable property, C participated in the said apartment; (d) on the other hand, the Plaintiff was residing in Gangnam-gu Seoul E building and 110 Dong 201 on Oct. 29, 2014 after the moving-in report was commenced. In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem the instant movable property as the object owned by C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.