1. On October 12, 2016, the Defendant’s notary public against C is based on the notarial deed No. 7411 of the Thaianan 2009, No. 7411.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the fact that a notary public against C performed the attachment execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) of movable property recorded in the separate sheet on October 12, 2016 on the basis of a notarial deed No. 7411 of the notarial deed No. 7411 of the Taean Law Firm Taean, the Defendant may not be disputed between the parties or recognize it in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since movable property Nos. 2 and 4 in the annexed list No. 2 and 4 were purchased by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff, the defendant, the creditor against C, should not be subject to compulsory execution against the above movable property.

In light of the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 5, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and No. 4 using his credit card, and according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above movable property owned by the plaintiff as owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the compulsory execution of this case is unfair by the execution of seizure of corporeal movable property owned by the plaintiff which does not have the effect of enforcement title.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.