1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each of the instant objects was originally owned C, and on July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.10,000 from the date of sale of the corporeal movables auction case held upon the Defendant’s application based on the instant notarial deed, and acquired ownership by purchasing each of the said objects.

B. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant items, but continued to keep each of the said items in C’s residence. On September 15, 2015, upon the Defendant’s request for seizure of corporeal movables based on the instant notarial deed, the seizure of each of the said items was executed.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the owner of each of the instant items shall be deemed the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the execution of seizure by the Defendant on September 15, 2015 cannot be permitted.

In this regard, the defendant received KRW 810,00 from C around August 2015, which was after the plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the above goods, and returned the above goods to C, and the owner of the goods changed to C, so the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

In addition to the entries of the evidence No. 3 (Recording) and the testimony of the witness D, the Plaintiff is recognized to have received KRW 8.10,000 from C in return for each of the goods of this case on or around August 2015. As such, the sales contract of each of the above goods was established and the ownership was transferred to C.

(C) The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.