1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution, this Court shall decide on March 22, 2016.

1. The Defendant filed a civil suit against C with respect to the judgment, and subsequently filed an application for confirmation of litigation costs related to the said judgment (2015Ka 60307) (hereinafter “instant decision”), and received the final decision of litigation costs in the instant case (hereinafter “instant decision”).

On March 10, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of corporeal movables based on the instant decision, and the enforcement officer affiliated with this court attached C’s corporeal movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) at the Office of Licensed Real Estate Agents (E Licensed Real Estate Agents Office in the Yellow City D) operated under C’s name, as a result, according to C’s interview and procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that since around April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property with C while jointly operating the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is a sole owner of the instant movable property only on the receipt (Evidence A2) or a business partnership agreement (Evidence A3) between the Plaintiff and C, written by which the time of preparation is unknown and it cannot be confirmed that the money was actually paid.

In addition, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff invested part of the deposit and the movable property of this case, and C jointly operated a licensed real estate agent office by investing qualification as a licensed real estate agent. If the plaintiff's assertion is true, the movable property of this case constitutes a partnership property and jointly owned by the plaintiff and C, so compulsory execution against the movable property of this case is lawful

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is not justified.