1. The defendant's execution of the case No. 2016 tea142 against the Daejeon District Court of Busan Branch of the Daejeon District Court of the Republic of Korea against C (K).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Daejeon District Court of Busan District for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 18 million and damages for delay against Section C (D). On June 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order (the above court No. 2016 tea 142, hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the same content as the claim, and the instant payment order was finalized on July 5, 2016.

B. On the instant payment order, the Defendant filed a motion for compulsory execution against C’s corporeal movables (this Court 2016No927). On December 15, 2016, the enforcement officer E, upon receipt of the said motion, seized C’s corporeal movables listed in the attached Table 1 list at the domicile of C (F of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun).

C. Meanwhile, on May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 at the compulsory execution procedure for corporeal movables (this Court 2012No318) conducted at the domicile of C (the same as the domicile described in the above Paragraph B) (the same as the domicile described in the above

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, overall purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which was located at C’s domicile on May 3, 2012, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which was owned by the Plaintiff according to the instant payment order, shall be denied.

B. The Defendant asserted that C was the owner of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list since C was occupied and used by the Defendant until the Defendant commenced compulsory execution after the Plaintiff’s bid. However, it is insufficient to recognize C as the owner of the said corporeal movables merely because C used the said corporeal movables at the same place after the auction of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list. 3.

In addition, the execution officer does not refuse the submission of corporeal movables and articles possessed by the debtor.