1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2008, the Plaintiff’s mother, transferred a move-in report to “E”.

B. On February 8, 2010, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land E (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground inspection building (hereinafter “instant building”) due to sale on February 3, 2010.

C. On May 28, 2013, in the Incheon District Court case 2013Gahap2388, the conciliation was concluded that “C shall pay 120,000,000 won to the Defendant by July 31, 2014, and if delay is paid, it shall be paid at a rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

On August 21, 2014, upon the instant conciliation, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of C-owned movables with the Jeonju District Court 2014No221 case.

E. On August 25, 2014, C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on August 1, 2014 with respect to the instant land and building to the Plaintiff.

F. On September 2, 2014, in Jeonju District Court Decision 2014No221, the seizure of each of the instant movables located in the instant building was conducted on September 2, 2014.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). 【No ground for recognition”, and the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as a whole, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Each of the instant movables located in the instant building, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is owned by D.

D The Plaintiff transferred each of the instant movables to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and buildings.

Therefore, since each of the instant movables is owned by the Plaintiff, the compulsory execution of the instant movables owned by the Plaintiff should be denied.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is each of the movable property of this case, taking into account the following circumstances, which are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4 and 6 (including paper numbers).