1. The Defendant’s notary public against C is based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 331, 2019.

If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4, the defendant's notary public against Eul, based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 331 in April 7, 2020, based on the notarial deed No. 331 in D 2019, the seizure of corporeal movables was made on April 7, 2020, Cheongju-gu E apartment and F (hereinafter "the movables of this case"), and the fact that the plaintiff owned the plaintiff and leased the movables to C on February 14, 2019 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the above compulsory execution against the movable property of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, based on the original copy of the above notarial deed against C, is unlawful as it is a compulsory execution against the article not owned by the debtor.

On the other hand, since the defendant purchased the movable property of this case from the plaintiff again and paid the price in full, it is alleged that the movable property of this case is owned by C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is without merit

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.