1. The Defendant has the executory power over a loan case No. 2014Gadan43088 which was rendered by the Suwon District Court against C.

1. On September 26, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power in the lending case No. 2014da430888, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables with respect to the objects listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each object of this case”) in the Pyeongtaek-si D apartment, 106 Dong 901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the domicile of C’s resident registration, on September 26, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since each of the goods of this case is owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution under the premise that it is owned by C shall not be permitted.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence Nos. 3 through 7, it is recognized that the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment on April 6, 2010 and resided therein with his resident registration from April 16, 2010 until now, and C was the Plaintiff’s city hold a move-in report on the instant apartment on May 11, 2017, but did not actually reside in the instant apartment. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of each of the instant items is the Plaintiff, taking into account the above facts of recognition.

Therefore, the instant compulsory execution is unlawful as it is against the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables owned by a third party, not C, a debtor, and thus, it should be dismissed.

3. According to the conclusion, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.