1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with D until September 2015, and the Defendant C is a partner of D, and the Defendants are married couple.

B. Defendant C’s creditors were subject to compulsory execution procedures for corporeal movables to Seoul Western District Court E (hereinafter “instant auction procedures”), and the movables listed in the separate sheet used by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant movables”) were bided to F. On July 3, 2015, a sales contract for corporeal movables was formulated between F and D as follows:

1. To display corporeal movables:

1. Case number (E) corporeal movables auction report;

2. The location of corporeal movables in the separate list of corporeal movables: Article 1 of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu, Seoul: The purchaser shall deliver the said corporeal movables on July 3, 2015 at the location of the buyer and the purchaser’s agreement, as follows:

C. The Defendants received the instant movable property from D on July 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for delivery of the instant movable

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the movable property of this case from a third party who was awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure of this case, and stored the movable property of this case to the defendants. The defendants are obligated to deliver the movable property of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the movable property of this case.

B. The written evidence No. 20 alone is insufficient to recognize that the owner of the instant movable is the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and thus, the request for extradition of the instant movable on the premise that the owner of the instant movable is the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff is without merit.

The plaintiff asserts that he had borne the purchase price of the movable property of this case and is the owner of the movable property of this case.