1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2018 Chicago230, this Court shall decide on December 2018.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On December 13, 2018, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment No. 2013Gada555 rendered by the District Court Decision No. 2015, the Defendant executed the seizure of corporeal movables on the movable property stated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the building located in Pyeongtaek-do (road name E; hereinafter “instant building”) located in Pyeongtaek-do.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff Company asserted that the instant movable property is not C but owned by the Plaintiff Company, and sought exclusion from compulsory execution therefor.

B. According to each description of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, it is recognized that the movable property of this case was purchased with the funds of the Plaintiff Company, or was provided as a private object of Internet services purchased in the name of the Plaintiff Company and the user fee was settled with the funds of the Plaintiff Company.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged through Gap evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the movable property of this case cannot be deemed as the ownership of the plaintiff company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The instant movable appears to have no relation with the Plaintiff Company’s business that developed, produced, and sold the construction materials.

② At the time of seizure, the instant building appears to have been used for the purpose of “residential” in that there were drum laundry, table table, table table, table table, chairs, sexual harassment, booms, etc. other than the instant movable property.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building is used as a lodging place, an office, or a restaurant for officers and employees, and that the “experience room” where goods, including the instant movable property, are stored is used by customers.

However, there is no employee working for the plaintiff company other than the representative director C, and C had resided in the building of this case without any other residence, and the movable property of this case is the plaintiff company.