1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant or the intervenor succeeding to the defendant is against B.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C Apartment 109, 307 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the owner of D and C apartment 10 million won, monthly rent of KRW 550,000, and the period from January 8, 2016 to January 7, 2018.

B. B, the Plaintiff’s representative E’s land, was residing in the instant apartment from February 2, 2016, and the Defendant, on February 22, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order as stipulated in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 2 against B, attached the movable property, etc. in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7 in the instant apartment.

(C) The movables listed in Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7 in the list, namely, the movables listed in the Schedule No. 1. C.

Meanwhile, on the grounds that the Defendant transferred the claim against B to the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the legal proceedings on November 21, 2017, and the Defendant filed an application for withdrawal from the legal proceedings on November 24, 2017, respectively, and the Plaintiff consented to withdrawal from the legal proceedings on March 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 8 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the apartment of this case was leased from D for the purpose of operating a dormitory for the plaintiff's employees, and the movable property of this case is the goods owned by the plaintiff, not B, from home appliances purchased by the plaintiff for this purpose.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of the payment order under Paragraph 2 of the Disposition against the movables of this case should not be allowed.

3. In full view of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by evidence, evidence Nos. 4, 6, 9, and 10, prior to the judgment, and the entire purport of the pleadings, the movable property of this case is acknowledged to be owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the movable property of this case cannot be permitted as infringing the Plaintiff’s ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff.