1. The defendant's order of payment order has the power to execute against the defendant's defendant's Seoul District Court Decision 2016j758, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased, at the auction procedure for corporeal movables conducted by a notary public against A on the basis of a notarial deed No. 2015No. 969 (No. 2015No. 1,2,8,11, and 12 in the attached list No. 1, 2, 8, 11, and 3 million won, any movable property, including each of the items described in the attached list No. 1, 2, 8, 12, and acquired the ownership thereof.

B. Based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Busan District Court 2016 tea758, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against the movables, including each of the goods listed in the separate sheet, with the Incheon District Court 2016No2446 on August 25, 2016. The enforcement officer of the above court seized the said movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12 are owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of the above items is unlawful and unfair.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant compulsory execution against each of the above items is unlawful, since each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 7, and 9 was purchased at the auction procedure for corporeal movables on December 11, 2015 and acquired its ownership.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s purchase on December 11, 2015 without gas and water supply, and the food table (5) and 24 (24) are much different in terms of the table (including chairs) and the number and amount thereof, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s purchase on December 11, 2015 and the items indicated in the table Nos. 3, 7, and 9 as indicated in the table No. 3, 2015 are the same goods, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion, each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12.