1. On July 9, 2019, based on the original copy of the payment order issued by the Jeonju District Court 2018 tea1762, the Defendant entered the list in the separate sheet.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the fact that the seizure of corporeal movables was made on July 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Jeonju District Court No. 2018 tea1762 (hereinafter “instant movable property”). However, the instant movable property purchased it in the procedure of compulsory execution against D-C and E on May 9, 2018 and acquired its ownership, and can be acknowledged as the fact that it was the object owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case, which the defendant based on the above executive title against C, should not be allowed.

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