1. The Defendant’s notary public against C has the executory power of the No. 176 of the notarial deed No. 2016.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the whole pleadings, the fact that the defendant's notary public against Eul has seized corporeal movables with respect to the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 176, Nov. 8, 2017 based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 176, 2016 (hereinafter in this case's compulsory execution), but since the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 5 among movables listed in the separate sheet can be recognized as being the plaintiff's ownership, the compulsory execution of this case shall not be permitted only for the above part, and since the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the remainder is the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiff's assertion as to the remaining part is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.