1. The Defendant is an executory exemplification of No. 177, 2018, issued by the notary public office against C with respect to a corporation.

1. On March 6, 2019, based on the executory exemplification No. 177, No. 177, 2018, the Defendant issued a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) on the corporeal movables recorded in the attachment list in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant domicile”) at the location of the non-party company, based on the Diplomatic Office’s execution document No. 177 against C (hereinafter “non-party company”) on March 6, 2019. On the other hand, on June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff registered his/her business as the location of the instant domicile on June 19, 2018 with the name of “F,” and on August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff was either free from the Chinese company’s COPPERICE MAFIN 1, 40,269, BITRE 18, 168, 2016 or 16, and 3 of the instant corporeal movables movables.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view the corporeal movables of this case as owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution on the corporeal movables of this case is not permitted because it infringes on the plaintiff's ownership.

3. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim